LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




J UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. I 



THE 



UNDERWOOD-MARPLES DEBATE, 



COMMENCING 
July 30, 1875, and Continuing Four Evenings, 



BETWEEN 



/ 



B. F. UNDERWOOD, 

BOSTON, MASS., 



AND 



REV. JOHN 7 MARPLES, 

TORONTO, 'ONT. 



1 



BFPOBTED BY JOHN T. HAWKE, 

Of the Toronto Leader, 

— 



(h-^ 




v| 



D. M. BENNETT, 

OFFICE OF THE TRUTH SEEKER, 

LIBERAL AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
141 Eighth Street, New York. 

1877. 



-V 



1* 



*b 



INTRODUCTORY. 

This debate, which created no little interest in Can- 
ada, is now given to the public with the consent and 
approval of both contestants, who have kindly revised 
their speeches for publication by us. 

A Letter from Mr. Marples to Mr. Underwood. 

Montreal, April 19, 1876. 
My Dear Sir: Yours of the 15th reached me here. I 
am perfectly willing that you should republish the 
report of our debate at Napanee. Of course you will 
have to correct your speeches and perhaps have to 
re-write whole paragraphs, but I must depend on your 
honor to put in nothing but what was uttered in the 
public debate. 

In reporting my speeches for "Both Sides," many 
paragraphs were much condensed; but Mr. Hawks suc- 
ceeded in bringing out the sense for the most part, and 
as I have corrected most of the mistakes in the sheets 
I sent you some time ago, I should not be disposed to 
re-write them all over again. Possibly your speeches 
will appear when in print in a permanent form longer 
than mine from the fact above stated, but you have my 
full sanction for the publication of the debate. 

With kind regards, I remain, my Dear Sir, 

Yours very truly, John Marples. 

B. F. Underwood, Esq. 



iv INTRODUCTORY. 

[From the Toronto National.] 

The four days' debate between the Eev. John Mar- 
ples, Presbyterian minister, and B. F. Underwood, Free- 
thought lecturer, on the subjects of the existence of a 
Personal God and the Inspiration of the Scriptures, 
commenced on the evening of the 20th inst., in the town 
of Napanee. The circumstances which gave occasion for 
this display of intellectual gladiatorship between one of 
the leaders of American Freethcught and a gentleman 
who has proved himself a fair and worthy representative 
of the talent, intellect, and culture of the Christian min- 
istry of Canada, are as follows : A short time since Eev. 
Mr. Marples, then a missionary located at Bracebridge, 
Ont., came across a copy of the National containing a 
letter of Rev. Dr. Carroll, of Leslieville, in reply to a 
communication from Mr. Allen Pringle, of Selby, near 
Napanee. His attention was called to the spread of the 
principles of Freethought in Canada, and he felt it to 
be his duty to endeavor to arrest its progress, not by 
ignoring it, as most ministers have studiously done, nor 
by attempting to crush out freedom of speech, as has 
been tried in several localities without success during 
the past year, but by meeting the champions of the 
new ideas face to face, in fair argument, and endeavor- 
ing to prove the incorrectness of their views before a 
public audience. He accordingly wrote to Dr. Carroll, 
obtained from him Mr. Pringle's address, and published 
a challenge to the latter gentleman through the columns 
of the National. The gauntlet thus thrown down was 
quickly taken up, Mr. Pringle accepted the challenge, 
but not being, a practiced viva voce debater, stipulated 
that he should be at liberty, if he chose, to provide a 
substitute — and procured Mr. Underwood in his place. 

Eev. John Marples was born amid the romantic 



INTRODUCTORY. v 

scenery of the Peak of Derbyshire, England, in 1825, 
and is consequently fifty years of age. He was educated 
and ordained as a Congregational minister in Yorkshire 
and labored there for several years. He subsequently 
accepted charge of the Congregational church at Darlas- 
ton, in the "Black Country," and after some years re- 
moved to Edinburgh, where he became a member and 
elder of the Free church. He labored four years with- 
out pastoral charge, a portion of the time a,s financial 
agent of the Scottish Evangelistic Association. On his 
emigration to Canada a few years since he made appli- 
cation to the Presbytery of Toronto and was received as 
a minister of the Canada Presbyterian Church. In 1873 he 
was appointed by the Presbytery of Simcoe to the charge 
of the missions in Muskoka, being stationed at Brace- 
bridge. The circumstances of his withdrawal from that 
sphere of action in consequence of his determination to 
engage in the public discussion of the question at issue 
between Freethinkers and the upholders of revealed 
religion, have already been noticed in our columns. In 
person Mr. Marples is of medium height, broad-chested 
' and of powerful frame. He has a high, well-developed 
forehead, the full perceptive faculties being well sup- 
ported by the driving force-bestowing organs of the 
back brain. He has a fair complexion and full features 
of great mobility, his emotions being generally strongly 
expressed in his countenance. He wears bushy side- 
whiskers, the original brown color of which has nearly 
all merged into the grey which betokens advancing 
years. His hair is straight and of a light brown. Mr. 
Marples makes a pleasant impression upon you from 
the first. His air is frank, genial, and ingenuous, and 
his cheery, hearty manner and personal magnetism go 
far towards securing the sympathies of his hearers, 



Vi INTRODUCTORY. 

apart from the subject-matter or style of his addresses. 
He smiles frequently when in conversation, with a 
broad, complacent smile, not a mere motion of the lips, 
but a movement giving the impression that the risible 
muscles extend over his entire countenance. When en- 
gaged in discussing religious subjects, he is all energy, 
combativeness, and vehemence. His strong emotional 
nature is apparently stirred to its depths. He speaks 
with great distinctness, deliberation, and emphasis, in a 
loud, sonorous voice, rolling his "r's" after the fashion 
of a tragic actor in a melodrama of the old school. 
He has the lung-power of a Boanerges, and his delivery 
is forcible in the extreme, abounding in changes of in- 
flection and pauses for effect, and characterized by vio- 
lent gesticulation. When excited he sways his body 
backwards and forwards, takes long strides, and whirls 
his arms in all directions in regular revival style. His 
rhetoric is that of the exhorter seeking to work upon 
men's emotions rather than that of the debater appeal- 
ing to their intellects. He has a strong North of Eng- 
land accent, which, together with his Presbyterianism, 
generally induces the idea that he is of Scotch origin. 
When he thinks he has gained an advantage over his 
antagonist he frequently gives utterance to an exclama- 
tion of triumph something between a laugh and a shout, 
which reminds one of the sound of a Scotch terrier shak- 
ing a rat. He is a kindly, earnest, and fair-minded man, 
and his bonhommie and ready humor find vent in fre- 
quent colloquialisms, and speedily put him en rapport 
with his auditors. 

[From the Napanee Express.] 

The debate of which so much has been heard for 
somo weeks past, between Rev. John Marples, Pr sbyto- 



INTRODUCTORY. vii 

rian minister, Toronto, and Mr. B. F. Underwood, of 
Boston, is now in progress in the Music Hall, Napanee, 
and attracts a great deal of attention. About three hun- 
dred persons have attended the first two evenings' de- 
bate, many of whom came from a distance to attend. 

Mr. Marples is a Scotch Presbyterian minister, who 
came to Canada about four years ago. He is evidently 
a gentleman of good ability and well educated. He is a 
ready speaker, rather of the declamatory than of the 
logical and argumentative order, but his ready wit gives 
him a good advantage with the audience in a debate of 
this kind. Mr. Underwood is more cool and argumenta- 
tive, and has evidently well mastered the arguments 
used in behalf of Atheism. 



THE 



UNDER WOOD-MARPLES DEBATE. 



FIBST NIGHT. 

Fiest Peoposition.— " That Atheism, Materialism and Modern Skep- 
ticism are illogical, and contrary to reason." 

The Eev. Mr. Harpies affirms, and Mr. B. F. Under- 
wood denies. 

He. Maeples. 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: —As there has 
been much misunderstanding as to the position which I 
occupy, and also as to my reason for opposing my 
friend, I deem it appropriate to spend a few moments 
in explaining how the debate originated. My friends and 
opponents, Mr. Pringle and Mr. Underwood, and myself 
were strangers unto each other until this evening, and 
but some four or five months ago I had not heard of 
their names. One Saturday evening', some months ago, 
I was going to light the fire in my sitting-room, at 
Bracebridge, with a piece of the "National " newspaper. 
I saw on the paper the Eev. John Carroll's rrame in 
connection with a written discussion on the subject to 
be brought before your notice this evening. In lookiug 
over the letters, I discovered that the person who was 
opposing the Eev. John Carroll was in error. I then 
made some enquiries as to whom this Mr. P., the author 



10 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

of these letters was, and it turned out to be Mr. Allen 
Pringle, of Lennox County. I sent a challenge to Mr. 
Pringle to meet me in debate. That challenge was ac- 
cepted for a substitute, and the result is our appearance 
before you this evening to discuss this great and solemn 
question. I hope that these explanations will be suffic- 
ient to show that there was no collusion between my 
opponent and myself. From my acquaintance with Mr. 
Pringle I respect him very much, and have had some 
correspondence with him, and during the whole of that 
correspondence he has conducted himself as a gentle- 
man, and with all the earnestness and culture that I 
could wish. I have had no previous correspondence or 
acquaintance with Mr. Underwood, but from what I 
have heard and seen of him, I believe that he will 
behave as gentlemanly and courteously as Mr. Pringle 
has done. Now, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentle- 
men, I appear before you with a conscious feeling of 
the weight and responsibility which rests upon me. I 
come before you as a very humble advocate of the divine 
truth, and also of Christianity, and it will be my busi- 
ness during the time I have to occupy, to endeavor to 
affirm the proposition which the chairman has read in 
your hearing, " That Atheism, Materialism, and Modern 
Skepticism arc illogical, and contrary to reason." Before 
going fully into the matter, it would be just as well to 
define terms. I understand that Atheism is a denial of 
a personal God ; Materialism to be an affirmation that 
there is nothing in the universe o:her than matter; Skep- 
ticism to be universal and general doubt. And, under- 
s'anding these terms in that sense, I suppose that by 
and by we shall come to understand each other. By 
your permission, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentle- 
men, I will proceed farther with the definitions, and as 



. THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. H 

this is the opening speech, and as there are certain 
laws, and rules, and regulations, by which we are to be 
governed, it is important that Ave should understand 
what those laws are. •The first point to be discussed is, 
What is reason ? Eeason I understand to be rationality, 
or in other words, human consciousness, arising first 
from intuition, secondly from analysis, and finally from 
induction. The next question is, What is logic? Logic 
is the art of using reason well in our enquiries after 
truth. Thinking that the audience understands so far, 
f will not dwell further upon those points. Logic, or 
the science and art of consciousness, I understand to 
imply, 1. Conception; 2, Definition; 3. Proposition; 4. 
Argumentation. I now proceed to another point of the 
definitions, and before proceeding further will define 
with regard to truth. The question is, what is truth? 
No doubt you have thought about it often, and have 
heard it used. I answer that truth in the abstract is 
the agreement of our ideas with the real in all cases. 
Having, by way of introduction pointed out the subject, 
and placed before the audience the rule by which this 
discussion is to be guided, I will now proceed to say 
that truth is of three kinds: 1. Physical; 2. Mathemat- 
ical; 3. Moral. 

Physical, mathematical and moral are the three kinds 
of truth prevalent in the world, and each is a standard 
for its own type, and each differs from the other. What 
is physical truth ? It is truth or evidence made patent 
to one of the five senses, such as the sight, hearing, 
smelling, tasting or touching. These are the five senses 
of the human mind. And by the use of them we reason 
the truth or falsehood of certain material ideas. The 
great failure with the Infidels in England, that I have 
seen, was this, that they take the physical tett and apply 



12 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

it to the moral subject. So with the mathematical test; 
and because the moral does not agree with the physical 
or mathematical, they say that it is not true. With 
regard to the first kind of truth, or evidence, that is phys- 
ical truth or evidence made patent to one of the five 
senses, such as I see the book or hear the sound of 
stamping. If I took up a rose and smelt it I receive 
the truth. If I took a piece of beef and put it into my 
mouth, I should taste it. Then again, by the sense of 
feeling I can determine the truth of the hardness or the 
softness of metals, and these senses are the inlets of the 
soul. When I was a student at college, and an agent of 
the Sheffield Town Mission, there was a gentleman in 
that town who became the leading skeptic or Infidel in 
the place. One day I was engaged in a conversation 
with him, and I asked him Avhat he thought of the men, 
women and children around him. He replied that he 
had never met a man or woman equally as good as him- 
self. I frequently discussed with this gentleman, and 
one day he had in his hands two pieces of iron, which 
he knocked together. He said I can see, hear and feel 
that those are two pieces of iron, and if your God 
existed, I could hear, see or feel him, and because I 
can do nothing of this, I therefore conclude there is no 
God. I replied, You suppose that conclusive, Mr. Dod- 
worth? He said, Yes. I again replied, if my God was 
iron, I could hear, see or feel him, but as he is not, but 
is spirit, I can neither see him nor hear him, nor feel 
him. I said, do you understand logic. He said that lie 
understood reasoning most thoroughly. I then told him 
that there were three kinds of logic — the physical, the 
mathematical and the moral, and if you will take the 
moral standard and apply that to the existence of God, 
and if the subject will not come up to it, I will give up 



THE UNDEEWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 13 

Theism and take up Atheism, and from that day to this 
he has never taken up the gauntlet. The second kind 
of truth is mathematical, and that is obtained by demon- 
stration, such as two and two make four; they do not 
make six, and are more than three. Any school boy 
will tell you that mathematical demonstrations belong 
to mental or to abstract subjects. Bishop Colenso is a 
mathematician and a good authority on mathematics, 
but in applying mathematics to the divine truth, he has 
let his mathematics run away with him. He takes the 
Bible, which is a moral subject, and lays his rule across 
the Pentateuch; and because the moral subject does 
not come up to the mathematical rule, he says that the 
Bible is not true. If Bishop Colenso will take the moral 
standard and apply that to the Bible, and if it does 
not come up to the standard I will give_up the Bible 
and become a Colensoite. I now come to the moral test 
or to the moral standard by which we test evidence or 
truth. Or, in other words, I now come to moral truth. 
By moral truth I understand the truth of I he word of 
God. This truth was in opposition to the truth received 
by the senses, in opposition to the truth received by 
mathematical demonstration. I have to observe that 
moral truth is supported by testimony. Here we have 
a court of law, a judge to decide, counsel to plead or to 
affirm, a jury; and witnesses are brought forward in 
cases of a criminal kind or otherwise. Those who are 
criminals are placed in the dock, and one after another 
is brought up to attest against the criminal. Having 
heard the whole case, the judge and the jury decide 
according to the preponderance of evidence. That is 
moral testimony. Of course there will be a great dif- 
ference of testimony in the witnesses. Some will have 
one part of the statement, and another another, and so 



L4 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

on. Some witnesses are perjured, and others stutter and 
do not understand the case, and you have to argue out 
the evidence, and then the jury go aside to discuss it, 
and after their agreement deliver a verdict. The same 
rule obtains in our ecclesiastical courts. We have a 
number of officials, and when the case is brought before 
the court of God, and when the case is properly sifted, 
then the court decides according to the amount or to 
the preponderance of evidence. I will now, once more, 
go to another court, and that is the court of conscience. 
That is a special court. What is conscience? My oppo- 
nents contend that it is a rule. Mr. Dodworth and 
other Atheists say: — "My conscience tells me there is 
no God." And in reply I state that mine says, there is 
a God. Now, the question comes who is in the right. 
Conscience is not a rule, it is a power by which we 
judge all our actions whether they be right or wrong, 
and therefore in order to have a right view of matters 
there must be a rule to guide you. Conscience is one 
thing, and a rule to guide it is another thing. What is 
the rule of conscience. Conscience is a power, it is 
said to be the natural friend of God, and it will speak 
if you do not sear it with a hot iron. It will speak if 
you do not throttle it. Now I maintain that the rule 
and law of conscience is the law of God. Therefore, 
conscience placed in connection with this is your judge 
of moral truth. It is the law by which the conscience 
is regulated, and let us apply that law. Well now, does 
law itself regulate conscience? I have endeavored to 
lay before you some of the leading theories and princi- 
ples by which I will establish the position that there is 
in existence a personal Being — self-existent and there- 
fore God. Wc will take this moral standard, not the 
mathematical nor the physical, and apply it to the 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 15 

question of a God, and if it turns out by this that my 
opponent can prove that there is no self-existent, per- 
sonal Being, then I will give up Theism and become an 
Atheist. Now, I will just occupy the remainder of my 
time in placing before you the leading points by which 
I will establish my position. Taking the moral standard 
and placing this to the subject, I can prove that there 
is in existence the eternal God. First, from the mate- 
rial universe; secondly, from the animal and the vegeta- 
ble life in the world, and the principles and power in 
operation there; and finally, from the position of man, 
his possession of an intellect and great power, the grand 
organization of his physical, mental and moral system, 
and that is a grand proof to him that there is an ever- 
lasting Being, that there is a self-existent and intelli- 
gent Power, and that power is God— Jehovah. I, as an 
individual, am dependent upon this power for all that I 
enjoy; because, from Jehovah I believe that everything 
springs. 



Mr. Underwood. * 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen: — It is gratify- 
ing to me to have an opportunity to stand upon this 
platform and discuss with Mr. Marples a question which 
throughout Christendom is regarded as one of greater 
importance than any other that can engage the atten- 
tion of man. I am pleased to find that my opponent is 
a kind, sincere, and earnest man. With such a repre- 
sentative of Christianity it is a pleasure to engage in a 
public debate. 

The defini.ions that my opponent has given in the 
somewhat desultory remarks of his opening speech are 
not very exceptionable, although I must criticize his deli- 



16 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

nition of the word Atheism, which he says is a denial of 
a God. Now, I have had intercourse with Atheists from 
my boyhood, and ought to know what their positions 
are. Although they do not believe in the existence of a 
personal God, I know of none who deny the being of 
God. To illustrate. A person may believe that on the 
planet Jupiter there are rational beings sixty feet high, 
with wings like eagles. In the absence of evidence we 
do not believe it, but, when we have no data, why should 
we deny it? We disbelieve what is unproven. We deny 
only what we can demonstrate to be false. Lest it should 
be said that I take a position which is exceptional among 
Atheists, I will read what Charles Bradlaugh, who is one 
of the leading and most radical Atheists of England, 
says in lys little work, "A Plea for Atheism": — 

" The Atheist does not say, 'There is no God/ but he says, 
1 1 know not what you mean by God. The word God is to me 
a sound, conveying no clear or distirct affirmation. I do not 
deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no con- 
ception, and the conception of which "ay its affirmer is so imper- 
fect that he is unable to define it to me. ' " 

This passage gives the position of the Atheist. I am 
not here to defend what any person may choose to call 
Atheism. My opponent undertakes to show that "Athe- 
ism, Materialism, and Skepticism, are illogical, and con- 
trary to reason." To do this he must grapple with what 
Atheists teach, and not with what is put forth by some 
individual of whom we have never heard, and of whom 
the world knows nothing. We need accuracy in this 
debate. My opponent says "Atheists believe in noth- 
ing but matter," but I may here remark that we are 
not to be confined to the theologian's narrow definition 
of mat' or. We must bo permitted to believe in space, 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 17 

concerning the nature of which, metaphysicians, from 
Pythagoras to Mill, have puzzled their minds. If it be 
said, 'Space is nothing,' I reply that there are four feet 
of space between my friend and myself, and by approach- 
ing toward him I can reduce it to two feet. Can we divide 
nothing ? or make it more or less than it is ? That space 
exists no one will deny. It must have existed as long 
as matter has existed, or a God — supposing one — has 
existed ; for if he has not existed in space, he cannot 
have existed anywhere. Matter, as viewed by modern 
scientists — Huxley and Tyndall, for instance — is not a 
mere inert, motionless substance, but in the definition 
must be included all the forces and activities which fill 
the world. The word matter must not be limited in sig- 
nification to a piece of rock or iron. It must include 
the force which is the synthesis of all the activities of 
the universe. This is scientific Materialism, as I under- 
stand it; and I state this in correction of my friend's 
erroneous statement as to the position of the Materialist. 
He tells us that skepticism is universal, or general, 
doubt. Its obvious meaning in this discussion is doubt 
as to religion. Surely the intended meaning of the term 
as employed in the proposition is not general doubt or 
skepticism regarding everything, including the intel- 
lectual capacity of man, the moral influences which' 
actuate his mind, the existence of an eternal world, etc. 
I understand it to mean, I repeat, doubt as to religion, 
or theological dogmas and theories. I offer this defini- 
tion in opposition to that of my friend, and I think it 
will be accepted as more fair and accurate than the one 
he has presented. Truth, he says, is conformity or 
agreement of our ideas with the nature of things. That 
is an unexceptionable definition, and one which I am 
willing to accept. But let it be remembered that things 



18 THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. 

do not always exist as they seem to exist. For instance, 
it is known to all that a rod in the water seems to be 
benfc, when, in reality it is straight. That is an illusion 
that may be corrected by further observation, or by the 
application of tests. There are a great many phenom- 
ena the appearance of which is quite illusory. Our an- 
cestors thought the universe* as flat as a pancake, and 
there was an agreement of their ideas with what seemed 
to be the nature of things. 

Now with regard to truth, of which my opponent has 
spoken at some length. For our own convenience we di- 
vide it into departments and subject it to classifications. 
These divisions, let it be remembered, are arbitrary and 
artificial, having no existence outside of our own minds. 
Or, as is often the, case, our divisions of truth are simply 
different aspects of the same thing. But comprehen- 
sively considered, truth is one and is not divided into de- 
partments. My opponent says he met an Atheist sev- 
eral years ago, with whom he had a conversation, and 
that during the conversation the Atheist said he had 
never met a man or woman better than himself, or even 
as good, and that he would not believe in a God because 
he could not hear, see, or feel him. Well, I must say 
that fellow cannot be accepted as authority. A man with 
the arrogance and vanity to say he had never met his 
equal, was simply insane ; and anybody who says he dues 
not believe in a God simply because he cannot see or 
feel him, talks very foolishly. That is not intelligent 
Atheism. I disbelieve in a personal, intelligent Deity, not 
because I am unable (o see him — I am unable to see 
many things which exist— but for the reason that the 
alleged proofs of his existence are to my mind unsatis- 
factory, and because there seems, to be evidence against 
the existence of such a being. I do not deny the exist- 



ftHE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 19 

ence of an absolute reality of which we cannot know 
anything only as affected by our consciousness, which 
is from everlasting to everlasting, and of which all 
knowledge must be relative. Call it God if you choose, 
but then the word is only a symbol of ignorance — the 
letter x in algebra that stands for the unknown quan- 
tity. Any person who attempts to define the absolute, 
to describe that which lies below phenomena, attempts 
the impossible. My opponent speaks of God as a spirit. 
Will he tell us what a spirit is ? He will say it is not 
matter. Well, then, what is it? The fact is, the word 
spirit, instead of conveying an idea, stands for the ab- 
sence of one, represents human ignorance regarding the 
nature of intellectual power. And so in regard to the 
word God. When my opponent says God it is equiva- 
lent only to my affirmation that I do not know. You 
witness the movement of a table in a spiritual circle, 
so-called, and not believing in Spiritualism, perhaps 
explain the phenomenon by using the word electric- 
ity, not because you understand it, but because it is 
easier to assign some imaginary cause, to invent a name 
to hide human ignorance than to confess modestly that 
you do not comprehend it. In regard to that which is 
beyond human comprehension, I confess my ignorance, 
while my worthy opponent covers his with a word and 
personifies it. 

We are told that when we discuss the Bible, we must 
treat it as a moral subject, and my opponent remarks 
that Colenso has failed to apply to that volume moral 
tests. We shall be pleased to act upon our opponent's 
hint, but must remark that he is mistaken in regard 
to Colenso, who — to refer to but one case — takes the 
thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and argues against the 
notion that God ordered Moses to destroy the Midian- 



20 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

ites, and especially those whose helplessness and inno- 
cence had even touched the heart of the Jewish soldiers. 
Before this debate ends I may be able to read what 
Bishop Colenso does say, and since he tells us that if 
Colenso will test th9 Bible by the moral standard, and 
they do not agree, he will give up the book, he may 
have a chance to come out as an advocate of Free- 
thought. 

Now in regard to conscience. He says it is a power, 
and if not throttled it will speak out and say there is a 
God. It is not necessary to go into a consideration of 
the nature of what is called conscience, to-night, but we 
can safely say it is no safe guide except it is enlighten- 
ed and educated. In matters of religion reason is the 
highest and best standard we possess; conscience is "a 
creature of education." What it shall "speak out" de- 
pends upon what the individual has been taught. There 
are some here to-night whose conscience would trouble 
them if they had not been plunged under the water in 
baptism, while others are just as well satisfied with hav- 
ing been sprinkled. Some believe it is necessary to bap- 
tize in fonts; others think it very foolish. Nobody here 
believes it would be right to sacrifice our lives in order 
to propitiate Deity, but it is said that in some countries 
thousands have thrown themselves under chariot wheels 
that they might appease God. Conscience being thus 
changed by education, is no infallible guide. Conscience 
approves certain acts and condemns others, but it does 
not give ideas nor furnish proofs. In a certain sense it 
is on the side of neither Theism nor Atheism. In an- 
other sense it is on the side of both. Its dictates being 
different in different persons, why appeal to it as evi- 
dence in a discussion of this character? 

My opponent says the existence of God has nothing 



THE UNDEEWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 21 

to do with physics or mathematics. Before he gets 
through with this debate he may be glad to appeal to 
both in order to make out his case. He says the exist- 
ence of a personal God is taught by the frame of nature. 
Well, if he will bring forward his evidence we will take 
the pains to examine it. Let him by induction or deduc- 
tion, show how it proves the existence of a Deity. He 
remarks that the existence of animal and vegetable life 
proves the existence of a God. Since he sees fit to make 
the statement, he should give some proof of it. He says 
there must be a self-existent, independent God, and that 
God is Jehovah. We want these statements accompa- 
nied by argument, or our opponent's reasons for his be- 
lief. It must not be taken for granted that there is a 
personal God in a debate in which this is the very ques- 
tion in dispute. We know that we exist, and that outside 
of us is an external universe. There is no evidence that 
there was ever a time when the universe in its entirety 
did not exist. Nature, full of motion and throbbing with 
life, impresses us all ; but of a great Being, with anthro- 
pomorphic qualities, who awoke from a slumber of ages 
sometime in the past, and created Nature out of noth- 
ing, I know nothing, and in his existence I have no 
belief. 



Mr. Marples. 

I suppose now, it will fall to my lot to take up most 
or all the points placed before you by my opponent. In 
the first instance, he paid me a great compliment by 
acknowledging my conduct to be courteous. Next he said 
that my speech was somewhat desultory; I leave the 
audience to judge whether it was desultory or consecu- 
tive. The third point was in regard to Atheism. Athe- 



22 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 

ism, he contended, was not a denial of the existence of 
a personal God. I hold in my hand a periodical just 
started, called "Both Sides." This paper has just been 
published at Aylmer, and is to be devoted to the publica- 
tion of debates of this kind, and for written discussions 
on the same subject. It is a very useful little paper. In 
the first number of this periodical is a short article by 
Warren Chase. The question is, " What is Science Do- 
ing?" The writer names a number of things, and says 
that some years ago the Bible account of the creation was 
overthrown with a number of other opinions. He also 
says, "Now comes Tyndall sweeping away Jehovah with 
the other heathen gods." I ask if Mr. Tyndall has swept 
away Jehovah, does not Mr. Chase bring this as an idea 
that Jehovah is not in existence ? If not, then I ask in 
the name of common sense, what does he mean ? My 
opponent says he does not deny the existence of a God ; 
he only says that he cannot see sufficient evidence to 
believe there is a God. Is Mr. Underwood sincere when 
he says that he is ignorant, and blind, and cannot see ? 
Can we believe that, Mr. Charman, and ladies and gen- 
tlemen ? Supposing now that I am spared until to-mor- 
row morning, and until noon, and if it be not cloudy 
we shall see the sun. Suppose I shut my eyes, and I 
say I cannot see the sun, you would say, open your eyes 
and then you can. I do so and immediately see the 
sun. I will say to Mr. Underwood, open your eyes to 
the light which shines all around. 

Mr. Underwood takes exception to my definition of 
matter. I asserted that Materialists believe, and Materi- 
alism asserts, that there is nothing in the universe but 
matter. But my opponent says that they believe in 
something else — they believe in space. Then I would 
ask what is space; and if he is so blind and ignorant 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE, 23 

how does he know what is space? If space is in exist- 
ence, then it is something, and if it be something it is 
either physical, mathematical, or moral. . And if my 
friend says he knows there is space because he can see 
it, then it is matter. Because anything that is patent to 
any of the five senses must be material. If it is not 
matter, then it does not exist, and if it cannot be sub- 
jected to a moral or mathematical test, then it is phys- 
ical. My opponent says that my definition of skepticism 
was not quite sound, and said that skepticism had always 
reference exclusively to religion. Does he mean to say 
that there are no skeptics on certain of the sciences, 
and many other subjects which have been presented to 
the human mind ? Skepticism, I contend, is moral doubt, 
whether applied to physical or to moral subjects. My 
opponent granted in substance the soundness of my defi- 
nitions of truth, but seemed to forget the adjective which 
qualified the noun Nature. He says that I said " truth 
was an agreement of our ideas with the nature of things ;" 
and says that "it was an agreement of our ideas with 
the real nature of things." I could show that there are 
three kinds of logicians if I had the time .to go into an 
argument. All fallacies arise from one of two things, 
either from correct argument from false premises, or false 
argument from correct premises. I would say that my 
definition was 'an argeement with the real nature of 
things.' He referred to the rod in the water appearing 
bent, and yet not being bent. It does not affect me, for 
it is the real that I referred to, not the supposition. 
Then in regard to physical, mathematical, and moral 
truth. My friend said that I made a distinction when 
there was no difference. Would he say that there is no 
difference between a piece of iron and an abstract thought 
in my brain ? The fact is, that in truth there is a phys- 



24 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

ical truth according to physical subjects. There is a 
mathematical truth, according to abstract or mathemat- 
ical subjects. There is a mcral truth according to the 
word of God, and that is the truth of the Bible. My 
opponent referred to Mr. Dodworth, and I thank him 
for the opinion he expressed and believe the same. The 
old book, which is so much abused, has a passage, " the 
fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." None but 
a fool like Mr. Dodworth would look among all the men, 
women, and children in the world, gods and angels, and 
say that he had never met a person superior to himself 
or equal to himself. I asked him, if I were to under- 
stand him to say that he was the best man in the uni- 
verse, and he answered in the affirmative in reference 
to his goodness, and set himself up as a god, and said, 
" Glory be to myself." And my friend says he was a 
great fool, even if he did have the form of a man. My 
allegation of matter was opposed. "Well, here is an ab- 
stract from the " Logic of Atheism," three lectures deliv- 
ered by Henry Bachelor, in reply to George Jacob Hol- 
yoake, the great English Atheist, of a few years ago:— 

" Preliminary to our undertaking, let me request your at- 
tention to one remark on the medium of mind and matter. 
What matter is, or what mind is, in itself, beyond the qualities 
or properties of either, or whatever you may call their powers, 
I cannot tell. All that I can say is matter is that something 
which makes itself known to either of my five senses, or to all 
put together — namely, to my sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch. 
Now mind has not qualities with which these five senses can 
communicate. You never saw, heard, tasted, smelt, touched 
your will, your consciousness, your reason, your memory, your 
conscience, your emotions, your love of the beautiful, the 
picturesque, the sublime. When Mr. Holyoake affirms that 
'spirit is only the negation of matter,' he asserts what is false. 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 25 

That spirit is the negation of matter I allow. That it is only the 
negation of matter I deny. It is perfectly philosophical to say 
that mind is not matter, because matter never showed to us an 
attribute of mind, and mind never exhibited an attribute of 
matter. I never saw, heard, smelt, touched or tasted a thought, 
a remembrance, a mental sorrow, or a pang of consciousness; 
and no man has ever rendered it the most remotely probable 
that matter can think, reason, remember, fear, hope, agonize, or 
rejoice, be miserable or happy. If, therefore, anyone tells me 
of something that reflects, argues, recollects, suffers, enjoys, 
every principle of philosophy demands from me that I declare 
that that something is not matter; but to affirm that that some- 
thing is only the ' negation of matter,' and is therefore nothing, 
is worse than ignorance. Are consciousness, reason, under- 
standing, memory, moral emotion, will, nothing ? That some- 
thing is not only ' the negation of matter,' but is the positive 
subject of all the collective attributes which we name mind. It 
would be equally philosophical to say that matter is only the 
negation of spirit, and therefore nothing, as that spirit is only 
the negation of matter, and therefore nothing. The majority 
of the students of Nature would rather accept the former con- 
clusion; and if there were any radical contradiction between 
consciousness and sense, consciousness being the more authori- 
tative, would constrain me to deny the existence of matter, 
rather than the existence of mind. But matter and mind 
are both made known to us by evidence of equal weight and 
potency. Our nature constrains us to regard matter as the 
positive something which is not mind, and to regard mind as 
the positive something which is not matter. Mind and matter 
are alike positive realities considered apart, or negative of each 
other when brought into comparison, and both for the same 
fundamental reasons. Their existence and their differences are 
testified by the same laws of evidence, and their acceptance or 
rejection must philosophically stand or fall together." 

To-morrow night I will proceed to establish the ex- 
istence of an .omniscient and all-powerful Jehovah. 



26 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

Mr. Underwood. 
It will be remembered that the proposition is that 
" Atheism, Materialism and Modern Skepticism are illog- 
ical and contrary to reason." I submit to you whether 
this has been proven, or whether there is any promise 
of it in what you have heard. I wish my opponent 
would leave unimportant matters and go right into the 
subject and show what it is that demonstrates the exist- 
ence of a personal, intelligent Deity. Will he bring 
forward the " design " argument or some other argument 
for such a being, that I may have an opportunity to 
refute it, if it be fallacious, and that we may all have 
the benefit of it if it be sound and logical. In reply to 
my statement that Atheism does not deny the existence 
of God, he quotes an article from " Both Sides " as saying 
that Tyndall has swept away Jehovah with the other 
heathen gods. It is true that science has destroyed the 
crude notions of the old Hebrew in regard to creation, 
and shown the childishness of believing in such a God 
as the Old Testament represents. A recognition of this 
fact does not involve a denial of God. Indeed, Mr. 
Chase — from whom the quotation is made — is himself 
a Theist and a Spiritualist. My opponent compares me 
to a blind man, and says I have but to open my eyes 
and see the light that shines all around me. He thus 
assumes that his position is the true one — that it is self- 
evidently true. Why go into a debate on a subject, and 
when asked for proof of the proposition he has chal- 
lenged Freethinkers to discuss, instead of giving them 
the arguments of which he raised such expectations, tell 
them that they cannot see as he does simply because 
they keep their eyes closed! I think I have pretty fair 
eyesight and can see what can be seen about as readily 
as my opponent. 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 27 

He speaks of an infinite God one moment, and the 
next he refers to him as though he were an individual 
very much Ike man. He ascribes to God all the qual- 
ities—the chief qualities of the human mind. The very 
thought of personality is inconsistent with infinity. 
Personality implies, as Paley says, "a centre in which 
perceptions unite and from which volitions flow." A 
Being that feels, thinks, reasons, is a being that has an 
organism that is acted upon and responds to the move- 
ments of an external world. Personality implies organ- 
ism and environment. A being that reasons, perceives 
relations, compares ideas and deduces conclusions, and 
thereby gets an addition to his knowledge. And so hope 
is made up of uncertainty and desire. Imagination is 
possible only when there is something invisible to the 
mind. Even benevolence implies sympathy, the capacity 
and experience of suffering, emotion, imagination and 
discontent. Can my opponent fail to see that in giving 
to the power behind phenomena, the qualities that con- 
stitute intelligence, he simply projects himself into objec- 
tive form, and creates an ideal being that must neces- 
sarily be finite, limited, imperfect and, as a God, there- 
fore impossible. 

I am asked how I know space exists. Of course our 
cognitions of space are through the senses. We have 
aptitudes, in common with all sensitive beings, by which 
we adjust ourselves to space relations. These, I hold 
with Herbert Spencer, are the experiences of centuries 
organized into the race. But this is a subject we need 
not discuss here. Space exists. Our knowledge of that 
fact comes from experience. If we had no sight, no 
feeling, no other senses, we could have no knowledge of 
space. Attaching great importance to his classification 
of truths he argues that space is either moral, mathe- 



28 THE UNDERWOOD - MABPLES DEBATE. 

matical or physical. Perhaps according to his definition 
we should say it is "mathematical," as we can subject 
it to measurement. If he chooses to call space matter 
he is at liberty to do so, although it is evident to my 
mind that space would exist if there were no matter, 
since it is that which holds all matter, and that if, as 
my opponent believes, there was a time when no mat- 
ter existed still there was space. Had there been no 
space matter could not have been made since the:e 
would not have been place or room in which to produce 
it. If this world were struck out of existence — suppos- 
ing it possible — still we can suppose imaginary points 
a mile or ten miles apart, a hundred miles apart. Be- 
tween these supposed points there would be no worlds, 
no air, no ether, but still there would be space. 

My opponent says there are all kinds of skepticism. 
Very true, but by " Modern Skepticism " is meant teach- 
ings or speculations that call in question revelation and 
religion. 



SECOND NIGHT, 

Mr. Marples. 

It will be my business this evening, in opening this 
discussion, to endeavor to place before you some of the 
points made in support of the proposition read before 
you. I endeavored last night, for the most part, to place 
before the audience the law and the rule by which this 
debate should be conducted, and the source and the 
authority for part of the subjects under consideration. 
In the first instance I endeavored to define reason as 
rationality or human consciousness; next, I defined logic 
as the art of using reason well in our enquiries after 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 29 

truth, In addition to that I endeavored to define truth 
as being, in the abstract, an agreement of our ideas 
with the real nature of things. These definitions were, 
for the most part, accepted by my opponent. The truth, 
then, I intimated, to be in accordance with logic should 
bo of three kinds. 1. The physical; 2. Mathematical; 
3. Moral. The physical truth is that which is patent to 
one of the five senses — anything material. You have 
the knowledge that you are sitting here ; that knowledge 
is physical truth. The second, being mathematical, is 
made patent, or demonstrated, to our minds by means 
of measurement or calculation. Moral truth is sup* 
ported by testimony; it accords with our consciousness, 
with spiritual inspiration, with true analogy. 

These are some of the leading points of the law of 
appeal in this debate, and now it will be my business 
this evening to place before the audience, in the time 
allotted to me, some of the arguments upon which I 
found the belief in the existence of a God. I will state 
at the start w r hat is known as a very old argument, and 
called the design argument. It is the one used by Paley, 
by Butler, and the modern theologians, and is the chief 
means by which we prove the existence of a God. Now 
it is important to have authorities sometimes, even upon 
matters of this kind; and I will look for authorities 
from all sources. I will look for it equally among our 
friends as ^imong our opponents. I will appeal to an 
authority that may surprise some present, and that is 
the great and noted Infidel, Voltaire, of France. He 
says, "I shall always be of the opinion that a clock 
proves a clock-maker; and a universe, proves a God." 
I am not afraid to say this evening that, in that re- 
spect, the sentiment of that great man, though he was 
an Infidel, thoroughly accords with my own. I will not 



30 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

only affirm, but will endeavor to show to you that there 
is reason and evidence for the existence of a divine, 
supreme, personal, self -existent, infinite, and eternal 
God. I believe that there is: 1. From the frame of the 
material universe; 2. From the principles of Biology, or 
of life; 3. From the intelligence of the human mind. 
First of all, I will endeavor to establish this position, 
and I think I shall be perfectly able to do so. There is 
a necessity for a personal, independent, self-existing, and 
infinite being, called Jehovah or Cod. With my eyes I 
can see matter; with my ears hear its sound. With my 
five senses, one and all of thein, I can observe the 
air, space, and the world called the universe. In look- 
ing at the subject of philosophy, apart from the Bible, 
and in examining the opinions of man in ancient and 
modern times, on the subject of causation, or the begin- 
ning of things, I have found a book published in the 
year 1810, (this book is an enquiry into the peculiar- 
ities of physical and metaphysical sciences, intended 
principally to illustrate the principles of causation and 
the opinions of philosophers, ancient and modern, in 
relation to the causation of the universe,) describing 
the characteristics of the German, French and British 
schools. I would just say that as to the cause of the 
universe, there are three different opinions extant. The 
first is, ' that the universe is eternal ; ' for that I would 
say we have not a particle of evidence. We have no 
physical evidence for believing that ever any man in the 
world lived through eternity, and cannot say that he 
saw the world from everlasting. There is no evidence- 
no ma-thcmatical demonstration, that any man can meas- 
ure infinitude. If my opponent, in speaking of space, 
wished us to believe it to be matter, and proves it to be 
matter, he can measure it. Last night he said that he 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 31 

could measure space, and if he can do that he is an 
infinite person, and we have present this evening a God 
upon the platform. In opposition to that I maintain 
that space is not infinite; that it is finite, or else it can 
never be measured at all. No living being has lived 
from eternity, and could not tell us that he had seen 
the world from everlasting. "We have just another 
point, and that is whether we believe that any person 
ever yet lived from everlasting and could have seen the 
world forever. If not. we have no evidence to our 
senses that matter is eternal. In the second place, no 
mathematician existed from all eternity, consequently 
we have no mathematical evidence that matter is eter- 
nal. Now we come to the moral point. The question 
is, can we, by a preponderance of evidence, or inductive 
or deductive evidence, really make it out to be true that 
matter has existed from everlasting? Could we, I ask 
you ? Does your consciousness rise up and say, Yes, we 
can prove by a preponderance of evidence that matter 
is eternal. Matter is not eternal ; that is to say, we have 
no evidence that it is. Next, Mr. Chairman, and ladies 
and gentlemen, the question is, if matter is not eternal, 
is it self-caused ? Have you evidence either physical, 
mathematical or. moral, to prove that there are any ele- 
ments in matter that can cause themselves to separate 
into existences without the application of external power. 
Did you ever see or read of such a thing ? If you have 
testimony to such a statement as that of matter spring- 
ing from nothing at all, and rising to individual exist- 
ences, it is a wonder we do not have new worlds rising 
up on the streets as we walk. The matter that we see 
around us is not able to arise itself into existence. If 
you believe that it can, you believe more than I do. 
The third point is, that we account for the existence of 



32 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

a universe by the existence of a personal, independent, 
omnipotent, eternal Being, who is not of matter but of 
spirit, who exists and existed from everlasting. He 
created the universe. That is the cause. We have mill- 
ions in the universe who believe that they were created 
by some wise and intelligent power. We now come to 
Voltaire, and "I shall always be of the opinion that a 
clock proves a clock-maker, and a universe a God." 
Look at, the sun, it shines at mid-day, and the moon 
that casts forth her light at night and all the mighty 
orbs ! Look at the earth and all creation, and these all 
stand as proof that God lives, and that they are the 
works of his hand. _ 

*' The spacious firmament on high, 
With all the blue ethereal sky, 
And spangled heavens and shining frame 
Their great original proclaim. 
The unwearied sun from day to day, 
Doth his Creator's power display, 
And publishes to every land 
The work of an Almighty hand. 

Soon as the evening shades prevail 
The moon takes up the wondrous tale, 
And nightly to the lessening earth 
Repeats the story of her birth; 
Whilst all the stars that round her burn, 
And all the planets in their turn 
Confirm the tidings as they roll, 
And spread the truth from pole to pole. 

What, though in solemn silence all 
Move round this dark terrestrial ball ? 
What, though no real voice nor sound 
Amid their radiant orbs be found ? 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 33 

In reason's ear they all rejoice, 
And utter forth a glorious voice, 
For ever singing as they shine 
' The hand that made us is divine. ' " 

Now, I suppose, dear friends, that I have said suffi- 
cient just to place the subject before you in a tangible 
shape, that you can see and understand the ground upon 
which we found our faith in God. We now come to the 
second point, and will argue the existence of a God 
from the principles of Biology or from the principles of 
life. 1. Vegetable; 2. Animal; 3. Rational life. Vegeta- 
ble life is that of the plants, herbs, trees, fruits. The 
animal life is that which promotes all locomotion in 
beasts; besides tills we have the life that exists in all 
intelligent beings, in fact the life of the soul of man. 
For God breathed into man the breath of life. In rela- 
tion tathe knowledge respecting this life much has been 
done of late, such as to distinguish certain forms of it. 
Professor Huxley has written largely upon ."Biology, and 
no doubt has done good service to the world, and aided 
much in the progression of science. I would help it 
much in this way; but when science is applied to reve- 
lation, I will say that it is invading another province. 
When they take science and set it up in opposition to 
revelation, then I will defend revelation, will defend it 
as being the elements of all true science, which is the 
knowledge of principles. Another gentleman who has 
done a dood deal in this way is Professor Tyndall, who 
has been very much misrepresented and set forth as an 
Atheist. He says that he is not an Atheist, and there- 
fore declared that he believed in the princples that 
were divine and omnipotent. Whether he went so far 
as to express a belief in a personal Deity I do not know, 



34 THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. 

bat he does not believe in the self-causation of matter. 
Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, here is the 
sum and substance of Professor Tyndall's theory. 

The London Globe says: — "Prof. Tyndall's laborious ad- 
dress to the British Association may be readily summed up by 
the simple re-statement of a very old argument. An egg con- 
tains all the material necessary to form a chick. It holds also, 
for a time at least, the force requisite to construct the animal 
out of its component elements. The only thing needed is to set 
the formative process in action by another form of force, or 
motion, called heat. But this last must be supplied from with- 
out. The sum of Professor Tyndall's researches is precisely 
analogous. He finds in matter the promise and potency of 
every form and quality of life, just as the naturalist and the 
organic chemist finds the organic materials of a chick, and the 
promise and potency to form one within the egg-shell. But 
neither the philosopher nor experimentalist can go one step 
beyond the facts. They are wholly unable to explain the some, 
thing from without in whose absence neither an egg full, nor a 
world of life can be called into palpable existence. This i3 the 
point at which philosophy again arrives — the old point at which 
it has been arriving by various paths ever since the first effort 
to penetrate an inscrutable mystery. The Egyptians symbol- 
ized the difficulty, and their inability to surmount it by offer- 
ing the mysterious egg reverently to their gods. They laid the 
unsolved problem of the finite at the feet of the infinite. Prof. 
Tyndall and the British Association might learn wisdom, with- 
out humiliation, from the ancient idolaters, and emulate their 
not ignoble submission." 

I will go into the third argument in proof of the 
existence of God, and reason from the intelligence of a 
human being. This intelligence includes three points. 
1, A personal identity ; 2. The varied formations or form- 
ulata in the mind; 3. The great power of the freedom of 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 35 

will. Pat them all together and I ask you if you be- 
lieve that anything but a personal, intelligent God could 
give all these existence and operation ? If all the 
beauty and exquisiteness of formation are but self-cre- 
ated, then I have nothing further to say. 



Mb. Underwood. 

Through a littte mistake of the chairman, my time 
last evening was cut short several minutes, and I did 
not answer some of the statements of my opponent. I 
will, therefore, before proceeding to examine his argu- 
ments of this evening, notice briefly what I was pre- 
vented examining. 

In regard to the different kinds of truth, he asked, is 
there no difference between a piece of iron and an ab- 
stract thought in his brain? Yes; and there is a differ- 
ence between a piece of iron and the heat "in it," as 
he would express it. But both the iron and the brain 
are material physical objects. Heat is one form of force 
and thought another form of force. Heat is a kind of 
molecular motion. Thought is a still more complex 
molecular motion. Now^to call one physical and the 
other mental, or to say that the conformity of our ideas 
with one class of facts is physical truth and the con- 
formity of our ideas with the other class of facts is 
moral truth, is to make distinctions that may serve us 
in our grouping of phenomena, but that has no founda- 
tion in nature. 

He seemed to endorse heartily what I said about his 
strange Atheist, and saw fit to to quote the Psalmist: 
"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." 
With as much courtesy I might say: The fool hath said 



36 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 

there is a God. If my opponent thinks the words of 
David applicable to all those who do not believe in a 
personal, anthropomorphic JBeing who created the world 
from nothing, he must be surprised at the number of 
fools in the world. But then let me offer him a little 
consolation by a quotation from Paul : "God hath chosen 
the foolish things of this world to confound the wise." 
Perhaps that explains why there are so many Atheistic 
fools, and why they are able to produce such terrible con- 
fusion among theologians — the wise men of the world. 

I again ask my friend to give something like evidence 
that there is a real spirit, something that is intelligent 
and rational, and yet is without the characteristics of 
material organized beings. Affirming or reading the 
opinions of somebody else is not proving. 

I now come to the design argument, and will give it 
all the consideration it deserves. I do not think that 
he gave it satisfactorily. That there is an intelligent 
Being who created and governs the universe, it is said, 
is evident to every thinking mind. "The heavens de- 
clare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his 
handiwork." The order, harmony, and adaptation ob- 
servable in nature, it is said, prove design; design is 
evidence of a designer, and a designer must be an intel- 
ligent being. It is absurd, we are told, to suppose that 
this orderly world, containing such admirable adapta- 
tions of means to ends, can exist independently of a 
Being who made and governs it. Nothing could have 
come by chance, it is said, and therefore it is inferred 
that this universe must have been created by a God. 

Let us view this famous argument for a moment. 
God is something or nothing. To say he is nothing is 
to say there is no God. If he is something, he is not 
merely a, property or quality, but an existence per se — 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 37 

an entity, a substance, whether material or immaterial 
is unimportant. If he is a substance, a material, or 
Spiritual Being, there must be order, harmony, and 
adaptation, or fitness, in his divine nature, to enable him 
to perceive, reflect, design, and execute his plans, If 
Deity does not reason, does not cogitate, but perceives 
truth without the labor of investigation and contriv- 
ance, he must still possess an adaptation or fitness thus 
to perceive, as well as to execute his design. 

To say God is without order, harmony, and adapta- 
tion, or fitness, is to say he is a mere chaos — worse 
than that imaginary chaos that theologians tell us 
would result if divine agency were withdrawn from the 
universe. If a being without order, harmony, and adap- 
tation, or a divine chaos, can create an orderly universe 
then there is no consistency in saying that unintelligent 
matter could not have produced the objects that we be- 
hold. If order, harmony, and adaptation do exist in 
the Divine mind (or in the substance which produces 
thought, power, and purpose in the Divine mind) they 
must be eternal, for that which constitutes the essential 
nature of a God must be the eternal basis of his being. 
If* the order, harmony, and adaptation in God are co- 
existent with him, are eternal, they must be independ- 
ent of design, for that which never began to exist could 
not have been produced, and does not therefore admit 
*f design. If order, harmony, and adaptation are inde- 
pendent of design in the Divine mind, it is certain that 
order, harmony, and adaptation exist, and are no evi- 
dence of a preexistent, designing intelligence. 

If order, harmony and adaptation exist, which were 
not-produced by design, which are therefore no evidence 
of design, it is unreasonable and illogical to infer de- 
signing intelligence from the fact alone that order, har- 



38 THE UNDERWOOD - MA.RPLES DEBATE. 

inony and adaptation exist in nature. Therefore an 
intelligent Deity cannot be inferred from the order, 
harmony and adaptation in nature. If the order, "har- 
mony and adaptation in Deity, to produce his thoughts, 
and to execute his plans, are eternal, why may not the 
formation of matter into worlds, and the evolutions of 
the various forms of vegetable and animal life on this 
globe be the result of the ceaseless action of self-exist- 
ent matter in accordance with an inherent eternal prin- 
ciple of adaptation ? Is it more reasonable to suppose 
the universe was created, or constructed by a being in 
whom exists the most wonderful order and harmony, 
and the most admirable adaptation to construct a uni- 
verse (which order, harmony and adaptation could have 
had no designing cause), than to suppose that the uni- 
verse itself in its entirety is eternal, and the self-pro- 
ducing cause of all the manifestations we behold ? 

Is a God uncaused, and who made everything from 
nothing, more easy of belief than a universe uncaused 
and existing according to its own inherent nature? Is it 
wonderful that matter should be self-existent; that it 
should possess the power to form suns, planets, and con- 
struct that beautiful ladder of life that reaches from the 
lowest forms of the vegetable kingdom up to man? 
How much more wonderful that a great being should 
exist, without any cause, who had no beginning, and who 
is infinitely more admirable than the universe itself. 

Again, the plan of a work is as much evidence of in- 
telligence and design as the work which embodies the 
plan. The plan of a steam engine in the mind of Fitch— 
the plan of the locomotive in the mind of Stephenson— 
was as much evidence of design as the piece of machin- 
ery alter its m chanical construction. If God be an 
omniscient being -a being who knows everything ; to 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 39 

whose knowledge no addition can be made— his plans 
must be eternal — without beginning, and therefore un- 
caused. If God's plans are not eternal ; if from time to 
time new plans originate in his mind, there must be an 
addition to his knowledge, and if his knowledge admits 
of addition, it must be finite. But if his plans had no 
beginning; if, like himself, they are eternal, they must, 
like him, be independent of design. Now, the plan of a 
thing, we have already seen, is as much evidence of 
design as the object which embodies the plan. Since the 
plans of deity are no proof of design that produced them 
(for they are supposed to be eternal), the plan of this 
universe, of course, was no evidence of a designing 
intelligence that produced it. But since the plan of the 
universe is as much evidence of design as the universe 
itself, and since the former is no evidence of design, it 
follows that design cannot be inferred from the exist- 
ence of the universe. 

The absurdity of the a posteriori argument for a God 
consists in the assumption that what we call order and 
adaptation in nature are evidence of design, when it is 
evident that whether there be a God or not, order and 
adaptation must have existed from eternity, and are not 
therefore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The 
reasoning of the theologian is like that of the Hindoo in 
accounting for the position of the earth. "Whatever 
exists must have some support," said he. The earth 
exists, and is therefore supported. He imagined it rest- 
ing on the back of an elephant. The elephant needing 
some support, lie supposed rested on the back of a huge 
tortoise. He forgot that according to his own premise, 
that whatever exists must have some support, required 
that the tortoise should rest on something. The incon. 
clusiveness of his reasoning is apparent to a child. "What 



40 TI1E UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

ever exists is supported. The earth exists, Therefore, 
the earth is supported; it rest on an elephant; the ele- 
phant rests on a tortoise; the tortoise exists, but noth- 
ing is said about its support. 

The theologian says order, harmony and adaptation 
are evidence of a designing intelligence that produced 
them. The earth and its productions show order, har- 
mony and adaptation. Therefore, the earth and its pro- 
ductions have been produced by an intelligent designer. 
Just as the Hindoo stopped reasoning when he imagined 
the earth on an elephant, and the elephant on a tor- 
toise, so the theologian stops reasoning when he says, 
God made the world. But as surely as from the premise 
that whatever exists must have some support, follows 
the conclusion that the tortoise rests on something, as it 
rests on the elephant, does it follow from the proposition 
that order, harmony and adaptation are proof of an intel- 
ligent designer, that the order, harmony and adaptation 
in the Deity to produce the effects ascribed to him are 
evidence of an intelligent designer who made him, as 
the various parts of Nature, adapted to one another, are 
evidence of an intelligent designer that produced them. 
This reasoning leads to the conclusion that there has 
been an infinite succession of creative and created Gods, 
which is inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause, the 
creator of the universe. Then why attempt to explain 
the mysteries of the universe by imagining a God who 
produced everything but himself, and why argue from 
the order and fitness in the world the existence of a 
designer. It reminds me of the ostrich, that having 
buried its head in the sand, so as to render invisible its 
pursuers fancies there is no further need of exertion to 
escape from the dangers and difficulties which surround it 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 41 

" Design represented as a search after final cause, until we 
come to a first cause, and then stop," says F. N. Newman, " is 
an argument I confess which in itself brings me no satisfac- 
tion." "The attempt," says Buckle, "which Paley and others 
have made to tolve this mystery by rising from the laws to the 
cause are evidently futile, because to the eye of reason the solu- 
tion is as incomprehensible as the problem, and the arguments 
of the natural theologian, in so far as they are arguments, must 
depend on reason." 

Design implies the use of means for the attainment 
of ends. Man designs, plans, contrives and uses second- 
ary agencies to accomplish his purposes, because unable 
to attain his ends directly. But how-absurd to speak of 
contrivance and design in a being of infinite power and 
knowledge. Man, to build a steamship has to fell trees 
and hew them into various shapes, get iron from the 
earth and smelt it in furnaces, and work it into bolls* 
braces, nails, etc., hundreds of workmen, carpenters, join- 
ers, blacksmiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers, rig- 
gers, etc., labor for months before the vessel can be 
launched. If man possessed the power to speak into ex- 
istence a steamship, would he contrive, plan and use 
means to construct it ? On the contrary, would it not 
come instantly into existence as a complete, perfect 
whole ? 

But the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means 
to an end, would be inconsistent with unlimited power 
in man. If he were able to effect his purposes why 
should he construct a vessel with which to visit far off 
lands ? Infinite power would enable him to "cross the 
ocean by the mere exercise of his will. It is evident at 
a glance that the use of means is incompatible with infi- 
nite knowledge and infinite power. This argument of my 
friend in proving too much proves nothing, and demon- 



42 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

strafes its own worthlessness, and therefore we cast it 
aside. Design implies finiteness; man designs and has 
to calculate and use means to accomplish his end. If he 
were all powerful would he use that power to construct 
ships to cross the ocean, or armies to win battles, when 
he could accomplish his end without, and by those means 
demonstrate that he is infinite in power? An infinite 
being would not have to employ means to complete his 
works; he would not have to doubt and cogitate before 
he accomplished his design ; that would be the method 
of man. It is absurd to suppose that a God did all 
those things. He supposed God infinite in everything 
in his power, in his love and kindness. He has power to 
do everything. And yet the world is so constructed that 
at every step we take we crush to death creatures as 
minutely and curiously formed as ourselves. They kill 
one another in numerous struggles, and life has been 
such a series of bloody battles, resulting in destruction 
of life, that the Waterloos and Solferinos of history are 
nothing in comparison. Where is the design in the vol- 
cano that belches forth its fiery billows and buries in 
ruins a Pompeii and a Ilerculaneum ? Where is the 
design in the tornado that sends a fleet with its precious 
freight of humanity beneath the remorseless waves ? 
Where is the design in the suffering and torture that 
thousands feel this very moment in the chambers of sick- 
ness, and in the hospitals full of diseases ? Where is 
the evidence of a great Being who has the power to 
make men happy, and yet allows the world to go on in 
all its misery— such misery as it makes one's heart ache 
to see, and which we, imperfect creatures as we are, 
would gladly stop if we could? 

And where is the design in the thousands of facts 
which science has brought to light, showing that there 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 43 

are organs and parts that serve no purpose at all, but 
on the contrary, are injurious to their possessors? Why 
do some animals, like the dugong, have tusks that never 
cut through the gums ? Why has the guinea pig teeth 
that are shed before it is born? Science tells us these 
rudimentary structures are the remnants of a former 
state, in which these parts were of service ; but theology 
which requires us to believe that a God made all these 
animals as we now see them, cannot possibly reconcile 
these facts with infinite wisdom and goodness. 

Adaptation in organisms instead of ha: ing been pro- 
duced by a Deity, we hold is largely the result of nat- 
ural selection. Adaptation must exist as the adjustment 
of objects to their environments. If a flock of sheep be 
exposed to the weather of a severe climate, those of them 
having the thinnest wool, affording the least protection 
from the cold, will perish. Those with the thickest wool 
and hardiest nature will survive every year, and by the 
law of heredity, transmit their favorable variations. By 
this process those best adapted to the climate live, and 
the others perish. Thus in the struggle for life we have 
the "survival of the fittest," without any design what- 
ever. But the theologian comes along and lookiDg at 
the sheep, says: "See how God has adapted these sheep 
to the climate." He forgets the thousands that have 
shivered and perished in winter's cold as the condition 
of tnis adaDtation. So animals change the color of their 
coverings in accordance with their environments. The 
bears among the icebergs of the North are white, because 
in the struggle for life every light variation has been 
favorable to the animal— has facilitated its escape from 
the hunter and its preying upon the living things on 
which it subsists. Those with darker coverings have 
gradually become extinct, leaving in undisputed posses- 



44 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

sion of the snow banks and icebergs this species, which 
in color resemble the general aspect of its surroundings. 
Look at the rabbits. Some change their color every 
year; some are brown in the summer and white like the 
snow in winter. Those with this tendency to change 
their color during the 3 T ear, having the most favorable 
variation, have persisted, and this tendency, by heredity, 
has been accumulated, until it has become a part of the 
nature of the animal. 

These are but illustrations of a principle discovered 
by Darwin and Wallace, and which explains largely 
how, not only color and thickness of coverings, but 
speed, strength and suppleness of body, keenness of sight 
and hearing, and all other parts and powers of organ- 
ism have been developed in adaptation to. their environ- 
ment, without any special design whatever. 

My friend says we have no evidence of the eternal 
existence of the universe, because we have no personal 
observation of it. But has he any personal observation to 
prove the existence of an eternal God ? Yet he believes 
in it. We believe the universe always has existed in 
the past, because we see no trace of a beginning; we 
believe it will always exist in the future, because we 
see no prospect or possibility of an end. Worlds have 
their formation and dissolution; but the substance is 
neither augmented nor diminished. Matter is inde- 
structible and eternal. We are not, therefore, in need 
of a creator. 

My opponent says I declared space was matter. But 
I did not. I simply said, in giving an illustration, that 
we can measure space; that if it were nothing, if it had 
no existence, it would not admit of measurement; but 
since our knowledge of the eternal world is by .compar- 
ison of objects, or since our explanations consist in 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 45 

showing what a thing is by designating qualities which 
it has in common with other things we have seen or 
known, it is impossible to define or classify space, for 
the reason that we know of nothing which it resembles. 
My friend says we cannot measure space, but wo can. 
Is not the science of trigonometry founded on the meas- 
urement of space? I admit, of course, that we cannot 
measure the infinity of space, but we can measure so 
much as may be included between two points. 

Voltaire is quoted to prove the being of a God, but 
Voltaire was a Theist like my opponent, and his state- 
ment counts for nothing as affecting me, even if in his- 
tory, I accept him as an authority. But, exclaims my 
friend, look at the stars, and the sun and the moon and 
the beautiful planets! Yes, look at them, but how are 
you going to prove by looking at them, the existence of 
a creator ? Sc'ence has demonstrated that worlds are 
evolved by a process just as independent of a creator as 
is the formation of rain by the condensation of vapor in 
the atmosphere. I am told farther by this representa- 
tive of theology, that life, vegetable, animal and intel- 
lectual, is a general outline of a God. 

He tells you truly that Huxley has added materially 
to our knowledge of biology. I am glad to hear a good 
word from a theologian of this Province for Prof. 
Huxley. But our friend forgot to point out how life is 
a proof of a God. He appeals to the Bible and says he 
will defend the teachings of that book from the assaults 
made in the name of science. But he should familiar- 
ize himself with the teachings of science, compare them 
with the Bible, accept the true, and cast aside the false, 
however consecrated by the faith and piet}- of ages. A 
mere appeal to the Bible, in matters of science, proves 
nothing. 



46 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 

We are told that Tyndall is not an Atheist. Well, in 
what sense? In his reply to his critics, TyndaH cour- 
ageously says: "I do not fear the charge of Atheism, 
nor should I ever disavow it, in reference to any defini- 
tion of the Supreme, which he or his order would be 
likely to frame." 

Tyndall is not an Atheist according to the narrow 
definition of my opponent, but certainly is in the sense 
of recognizing no personal intelligent Being that created 
and governs the universe. Quoting from somebody, my 
friend brings the authority of Tyndall to the purport 
that, to the forces in the egg must be added another 
form of force, called heat, before the chicken is devel- 
oped. But why take the trouble to quote that? We 
all know that there are certain forces in the egg, which 
by the amplication of heat, are by the law of correla- 
tion converted into life, intelligence, and consciousness. 
This admits not of a doubt. But how does it prove a 
God or a designer? Life exists so homogeneously that 
there is not sufficient differentiation for us to discover 
any difference in the parts of the living substance which 
is but a mass of jelly or a speck of albumen. There is 
nothing in its origin more wonderful than in the phe- 
nomena of crystalization. And from these low homogen- 
eous forms of life, by causes entirely natural we be- 
lieve, have been in the course of ages, developed higher, 
more specialized, and more complex organisms. We 
hold with Tyndall that "as far as the eye of science 
has hitherto ranged through Nature, no intrusion of 
purely creative power into any series of phenomena has 
ever been observed." 

" The assumption of such a power to account for special 
phenomena has always proved a failure. It is opposed to the 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 47 

very spirit of science, and I therefore assumed the responsibil- 
ity of holding up in contrast with it, that method of nature 
which it has been the vocation and triumph of science to dis- 
close, and in the application of which we can alone hope for 
further light. Holding, then, that the nebular and all subse- 
quent life stand to each other in the relation of the germ to the 
finished organism, I re-affirm here, not arrogantly or defiantly, 
but without a shade of indistinctness, the position laid down in 
Belfast." 



Me. Maeples. 

I would ask this audience whether my opponent 
knew at all what was said in the article I read about 
the egg ? It was said that the egg combined everything 
necessary to form the chick but heat, and that must be 
applied from the outside. That heat must come nat- 
urally or artificially. If naturally, the hen must sit upon 
it and hatch the egg into a chicken. God established 
the instinct which makes the hen do that, and watches 
over her. The egg is hatched by heat, iu accordance 
with his law. You can actually heat an egg without the 
hen sitting upon it, and keep it warm until the shell 
breaks and the chicken pops out. One of those things 
is in the order of Nature, which God has established. 
But suppose you wished to do the same thing artific- 
ially. What heats the egg then ? It is a wonder that 
stones do not roll upon eggs and hatch them artificial- 
ly. It is the intellect of man which directs him to 
apply heat to hatch the egg, and that intellect is from 
God. Now, in regard to Mr. Tyndall. My respected 
friend declared that Mr. Tyndall was as much of an 
Atheist as he was. We will hear what Mr. Tyndall says 
upon this F.ubject. This is from "Prayer in Relation to 



48 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBxiTE. 

Natural Law," by the Eev. Prof. Wallace. It speaks of 
Mr. Tyndall as saying: — 

" The theory that the system of Nature is under the control 
of a*being who changes phenomena dn compliance with the 
prayers of men, is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate one. 
It ma} r , of course, be rendered futile by being associated with 
conceptions which contradict it; but such conceptions form no 
necessary part of the theory. It is a matter of experience that 
an earthly father, who is at the same time wise and tender, list- 
ens to the requests of his children, and, if they do not ask 
amiss, takes pleasure in granting their requests. We know, 
also, that this compliance extends to the alteration, within cer- 
tain limits, of the current of events on earth. With this sug- 
gestion offered by our experience, it is no departure from sci- 
entific method to place behind natural phenomena a universal 
father, who, in answer to the prayers of his children, alters the 
currents of these phenomena." 

Does any Christian man want any more proof than 
that? Is not that sufficient without a word more? I 
will just take up another point, about the statement 
w T ith regard to the creation of light. Of course I should 
not have brought in the Bible to-night, but as he has 
referred to it, I am perfectly justified in doing so my- 
self. I find that, in the account of the creation, 
God created a universe in six days, or periods called 
days. On the first he created light; on the second the 
firmament; and on the third the earth; on the fourth 
the sun, moon and the stars, or rather made or formed 
them; on the fifth day he created the fishes of the sea 
and the fowls of the air; arid on the sixth clay, in the 
morning, he created the animals, and, in the evening, 
he made man; and having finished his work, he sat 
down and took his rest on the seventh. I think that it 
ii not very hard to explain that which appears to my 



THE UNDERWOOD MAEPLES DEBATE. 49 

opponent a difficulty. He says that it -is strange that 
God created light before he created the sun. The sun 
is scientifically a source of light. My explanation is 
that God on the first day said "Let there be light," and 
light sprang into existence. I understand that God cre- 
ated globules or the atoms of light, which were scat- 
tered all throughout the chaotic mass of darkness, and. 
there you have the first beginning of light. On the 
fourth day the Bible does not say that God created fresh 
light, but he collected these globules into a globe, and 
that is the sun. He then made the moon, and she 
reflects the light of the sun ; and created the stars, and 
that was the work of the fourth day. YVhat I believe is 
in accordance with science and the scriptures. My friend 
stated that I said that science was setting itself in op- 
position to revelation. If I said that, I did not intend 
to say it. I think that I said, it was science falsely so 
called. I maintain that science is not in opposition to 
revelation; I maintain that it is in accordance with rev- 
elation ; and is useful to help us to understand revela- 
tion, and I therefore take it as a hand-maid to truth, 
as a help to God's Word to light us to glory- I will 
make this admission, Tom Paine wrote two books, one 
of them called the "Age of Keason " — a politico-irre- 
ligious book. Will you pardon me if I endorse! he title 
of the book, but not the contents. I believe that this 
is the Age of Reason, and that it is a work of wisdom 
to take —reason not as Tom Paine did, to oppose revela- 
tion; he did wrong to oppose it to revelation — but we 
should take reason and apply it to understand revela- 
tion, to interpret it, to explain it, as I am trying to do 
to-night; to prove the existence" of God, and show that 
skepticism is in opposition to reason. I will tell you 
that God expects you to take reason, and by its light 



50 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE, 

to endeavor to understand his word. In regard to time. 
Did you understand Mr. Underwood to assert that time 
is eternal ? If he can make out time to be eternity, 
then I do not know the meaning of time. Did you ever 
hear anything like that before? Eternity is something 
that you cannot measure, and time and space are some-' 
thing that can be measured. Time is distinct from eter- 
nity. My friend said that one truth must be in harmony 
with another. Now, I admit that all truth is one, and 
-whatever form it assumes, it comes from God, and is 
like him. My opponent said, that I said last night that 
the horse was above a man. Of course, if he wishes to 
have it that way I have no objection. I had a great 
horse once called Le Morgan ; it was above me, because 
it was higher than I. I said that because man -had a 
mind, an intellect, and a will, he was far superior to 
the horse. 

My friend possesses a good deal of descriptive power, 
and I was much interested in the grand description 
he gave us in regard to the order of nature, and at the 
same time I thought that he was actually proving the 
existence of a God. He uses his descriptive power, aud 
I my logical power, and between the two we shall es- 
tablish the existence of God beyond a doubt. I did not 
admire my friend's illustration about the Hindoo, who 
takes up the idea of the elephant and the tortoise. 
We have from him one moment the height of rhetorical 
power, and then the depths of elephantine power and 
physical power in a paragon, There was a man in Scot- 
land who tried to prove that his forefather was a mon- 
key. Of course I do not envy him his ancestors, nor 
my respected friend and opponent his. If he says that 
I came from a monkey, then I must join issues with 
him, for I believe that I sprang from a higher source. 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 51 

I do not believe that monkeys changed into men; I 
.believe that they never did, and I believe that they 
never will. I believe that God is self-existent and eter- 
nal; that he fills the immensity of space; that he crea- 
ted the universe and sustains it. My friend does not 
entertain this idea, and gives us a lengthy argument 
against it. But I say that when God comes down from 
heaven in physical form, and uses the hammer, and 
commences to make men and worlds, then I say that 
there is some sense in the argument of my opponent. 
What has all the misery spoken of to do with the ques- 
tion in. hand ? Of. course, if we come to the fact of mis- 
ery, we have it laid down a,s clearly as possible in the 
Bible. Man was created in the image of God. all per- 
fect. Satan, in the form of a serpent, tempted Eve, and 
we fell. This, instead of proving the non-existence of 
God, proves the existence of human depravity. I believe 
in the existence of God. I never said that I believe that 
God will always exist, because he always existed. I gave 
as a reason for the existence of God, that there was 
sufficient evidence coming up from the moral standard 
to prove it. If my friend supposes that I said that, he 
made a great mistake. My friend intimated that I had 
spoken of a being that was organized, if he were a per- 
son at all; and that he was a long way from being per- 
fect. I rather spoke of God as a being who was possessed 
of all power — of all wisdom. There is an attribute of 
God, which cannot be touched, and that is his mercy. 
See the manifestation of it in the gift of Christ. I would 
say, taking this standard (the moral), it supplies me 
with a vast preponderance of evidence that there is not 
only a being in existence, but that he is perfect in 
power, in wisdom, in kindness, in justice, in conscious- 
ness, in truth, in love, in every sense absolutely perfect, 



52 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

and the only absolutely perfect be*ng in existence. 
T.iere are some points which I should have liked to 
have shown to prove the existence of the human soul, 
that its existence is logically true. This book, as I have 
intimated, is on the varied theories of philosophy as 
attained in ancient and modern times; it treats of phi- 
los >phy in all ages and countries. The sum and sub- 
stance of philosophy on the subject under consideration 
is implied in these points. It is concerning the freedom 
of the will. Is God only possessed of absolute freedom 
of will? That is, is he never incited by a motive? That 
God is perfect in will, that will with him is law, and 
whatever seemeth good unto him, he has a prerogative 
to do. Secondly, man possesses a comparative freedom 
of will. That is, he never acts unless influenced by a 
motive. Go I holds that man, as man is a responsible 
moral agent, and influenced by motives, and that is 
Comparative freedom of will. I say that substantially, 
matter is inert, and has not will. I tell you as intelli- 
gent and moral and responsible beings, that you have 
the grand possession of a mind, which is superior to all 
monkeys, all pigs, all cows, all animals, and that God 
placed you at the head of creation, and God in his book 
tells you that he placed you there. 



Mr. Underwood. 

My opponent says I charged him with saying the 
horse is higher than the man. If: I said that, it was, of 
course, a slip of the tongue. What he did say is that 
man is above the h u'se because man possesses reason, 
will, and mind. That remark implies what is obviously 
>mt-M"\ that the horse does not possess these qualities. 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 53 

The horse has perception and reflection; it remembers 
and reasons as certainly, although not to the same ex- 
tent, that man does. Will an old horse attempt to jump 
over a fence which he is incapable of leaping? Can you 
deceive a horse with an empty measure after the trick 
has been played on him several times? Does he not 
perceive, reason, and act from definite conclu ions ? 
Strike a dog, and will he not the next time get out of 
your way when you meet him ? He certainly goes through 
a mental process and exhibits the power of perceiving 
relations, comparing impressions, and deducing conclu- 
sions ? Man, with a higher organization, is capable of 
higher and more complex reasoning. My friend's asser- 
tions, many of them, will not bear the test of scrutiny 
or logic. 

He says the egg is hatched by external heat, that 
God has arranged the method by which it is done, that 
either the heat of the fowl's body or artificial heat, 
under the direction of man's intelligence, is necessary 
to develop the egg into a living organism. Indeed! 
What will he say of the millions of eggs hatched in the 
sand of the desert, under the rays of the sun, where 
neither the body of the bird or animal, nor the intelli- 
gence of man has anything to do with the hatching? 
How the forces of the egg are converted into the life 
and intelligence of the animal is one of those mysteries 
before which we all stand dumb. He quotes from Wal- 
lace to show that Tyndall believes in the existence of a 
God who could change the order of the universe. But 
he believes in nothing of the kind. Tyndall has said 
there may be such a being, but there is no evidence of 
it. If my opponent had read the whole of " TyndaU's 
Essay," instead of quoting a few sentences second-hand, 
he would have seen that Tyndali's posiiion is the one 



54 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

I am maintaining in this debate. Those who applauded 
my friend's inaccurate statements on this point showed 
their entire unacquaintance with Tyndall's position. He 
is no dogmatist, but a scientist. 

My opponent says God created originally atoms of 
light. Modern science demonstrates that light is not a 
substance, composed of atoms, but a mode of motion. 
We can convert motion into heat, heat into light, light 
into electricity. Some days after the creation of these 
globules or atoms of light, he says God collected them 
together. This is strange talk. Where does he get his 
information ? The Bible has not a word of reference to 
that. He says that science and revelation agree. Do 
they? We shall see by and by! He says that Paine 
did wrong in deifying reason ; but he should have quoted 
from Paine's book to have shown that Paine did so. 
Paine, instead of deifying reason, alludes to an Almighty 
thus: 

" I believe in one God and no more ; and I hope for happi- 
ness beyond this life. 

" I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that relig- 
ious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeav- 
oring to make our fellow creatures happy. 

"Do we want to contemplate his power ? We see it in the 
immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his 
wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the in- 
comprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contem- 
plate his munificence ? We see it in the abundance with which 
he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? 
We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the 
unthankful. " 

There is no use of making unfounded charges against 
individuals. He says that time is not eternal. Time is 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 55 

a term used to designate duration : theologians use it 
to designate the duration of the world. Time is but a 
portion of eternitj", and stretches indefinitely either way. 
Time without beginning and without end is eternity. 
There never could have been a time when there was no 
time, nor can there be a time when there will be no 
time. He says that eternity cannot be measured, but it 
is a portion that we measure — an hour, a day, a year, or 
a century. Further he says that my argument against 
design was very argumentative and very oratorical, etc. 
He was much pleased with it, but why does he not meet 
it? He must remember that this debate is to be pub- 
lished, and that that argument is to appear with it. 
Then it will be tested whether that outburst of merriment 
at the close of his speech will be received as an answer to 
my refutation of the a posteriori argument. I say with 
Huxley, I would rather believe that I had advanced from 
the condition of a monkey up to my present state, than 
to be a theologian and put my talent to no better use 
than to ridicule science. He says that God is omnipo- 
tent, and omnipresent; again, and the next moment, says 
that he is personal. How can he be both ? It will appear 
that Theism is contrary to reason, and not Atheism and 
skepticism, which as yet he has made no attempt to dis- 
prove. He says that mischief and misery come from 
sir*. That is one way to get out of the difficulty! I say 
that there cannot be infinite love in God to allow all 
the misery with which we are surrounded, when it is in 
his power to prevent it, and to make us happy. If he 
were so full of love he would relieve our sufferings if 
he had the power. If he were so merciful and so kind, 
and yet unlimited in power, he would not have consti- 
tuted this world in such a manner that our every step 
means death — that in breathing we convert our body 



56 THE UNDERWOOD - MAHPLES DEBATE. 

into a tomb, for thousands of creatures as minutely and 
curiously formed as ourselves. In his story about the 
cause of sin, I suppose he refers to the Devil, who 
tempted Eve. God made this angel who became a devil : 
God made him a perfect being. If he were made a per- 
fect being and has fallen, what assurance have I that 
God Almighty will not fall and become a devil? God 
having made man and. everything in existence, he must 
be responsible for everything that exists. I ask, if the 
world is so bad, and the depravity of man so great, why 
does he not blot the w T orld out of the universe? Why did 
this Being of infinite power and love allow the world to be 
created with such misery and sin, so as to cause mankind 
to endure eternal punishment ? I say that while this 
doctrine prevails, it makes God worse than any human 
fiend. I said that he probably believed that God always 
w r ould exist because he always had; I supposed it to be 
so because the most of the theologians believe it. If you 
prove that God always will exist, you prove that he 
always did exist. I did not ascribe this to him as his 
statement, but as the only reason he can prove for the 
eternity of God. My friend says that man has compar- 
ative freedom of will. I do not think that that is nec- 
essary to this discussion. I do not believe, that man 
has. I can raise my hand if I choose, but whether I 
will so choose depends upon a number of circumstances. 
Remember the proposition. It is that "Atheism, Mate- 
rialism, and Modern Skepticism are illogical and con- 
trary to reason." What has been done to establish it? 
I asked him to prove it, and he overlooked it, and we 
have heard no more about it. He has made no at- 
tempt to show any kind of skepticism, logical or illog- 
ical. He said that Materialism is a system which de- 
nied the existence of anything excepting matter. I 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 57 

called his attention to space; the infinitude of which 
we could not measure. Did he correct himself? No! 
He says how do you get your knowledge that there 
is space. That is irrelevant. Then he goes on making 
his definitions, and dividing truth into department s. He 
lays down his position and says that the main argument 
will come the next evening. He gave a repetition this 
evening of that laid down last evening, and folio we I 
with the design argument. I replied to it, and contend 
t i 1 at. it was overwhelmingly refuted. He made a ,ktle 
merriment of it, but made no attempt to defend it. 
Then he gave us an essay on light, to which I replied, 
and to my reply he made no rejoinder. He said in ref- 
erence to the egg, that to beiiatched it needed the heat 
from the hen, or artificial heat; and that if artificial 
heat be applied, man's intelligence must direct it. I 
referred him to the millions of eggs hatched in the 
sands underneath the rays of the sun. I will simply 
repeat the argument tl at I used in refuting the argu- 
ment on the grounds of design. It is based on the sup- 
position that order and adaptation in nature could only 
come from intelligence, and I replied by showing that 
if there is a deity he must possess order and adaptation 
(or fitness) or he would be a mere chaotic mass. He 
must have greater harmony than the universe, and there 
could have been no beginning in his harmony, and having 
no beginnings to his order and harmony, they could not 
have been designed, and must be independent of design. 
And then we come to the conclusion that adaptation and 
harmony exist without design. Therefore if there be or- 
der, and harmony and adaptation in the universe that 
never had a beginning, it is illogical and contraiy to rea- 
son to say that order and harmony are evidence of design. 
Our plans are as much evidence of design as the object 



58 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

that we construct from them. In the mind of Elias Howe 
the plan of the sewing-machine was as much evidence 
of design as when he constructed it. So with the Deity; 
if his plans exist they must have always existed, for he 
was the same yesterday, to-day and forever. If these 
plans exist and are no evidence of design, then we 
declare that this universe is no evidence of design, and 
all this argument of Paley's is wasted. We have endeav- 
ored to show that the adaptation in nature has resulted 
from the environments around it; and when you see 
one thing adapted to another, you say, see the wonder- 
ful power of God to provide for all things, when actu- 
ally it is the result of entirely natural causes. In that 
way I have, I think, refuted the theory of design. 



THIRD NIGHT. 

Second Pkoposition— " That the Bible, consisting of the Old and 
New Testaments, contains ovidence beyond all other books of 
its divine origin." 

Mr. Marples affirms, and Mr. Underwood denies. 

Me. Maeples. 

As you have heard from the Chairman, we have 
arrived at the stage when we discuss the second propo- 
sition agreed upon for the last two of the four nights. 
Before proceeding to direct your attention to the book, 
I deem it wise to mention the law of appeal. It has 
been repeated and referred to more than once on the 
two former evenings. I intend to abide by the law of 
reason, logic and truth. Reason and logic have been 
defined, and it is unnecessary to repeat it. I now 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 59 

come to truth, and will repeat that which I have said 
respecting that point. In truth as I have previously- 
stated, there are three divisions. 1. Physical, or truth 
made patent to one of the five senses; 2. Mathematical, 
or that made patent by demonstration, and refers to 
space and to principles; 3. Moral truth — that which is 
sustained by testimony; that is to say, is sustained by 
a preponderance of evidence. This is the standard we 
apply to the subject under consideration. In addition to 
the definitions given, we have had some reference to 
what is termed a syllogism. One of the divisions of 
logic treats of argumentation. The mode of reasoning 
to be adopted this evening is that termed the syllogistic, 
or consisting of three propositions. 1. A major ; 2. A 
jninor; 3. An inference. These are the three points of a 
syllogism. Apply this to the subject under considera- 
tion to-night; and I notice this as the major one. That 
all subjects under that category that can be supported 
by a preponderance of evidence are authentic, and proved 
by the laws of logic. I will repeat so that you may 
understand it. That all subjects supported by a pre- 
ponderance of evidence are considered authentic accord- 
ing to the laws of logic. That is the major proposi- 
tion. In connection with that we must have a minor 
proposition, and that is that the subject under consider- 
ation this evening is capable of producing a preponder- 
ance of evidence, and therefore must be in accordance 
with logic. If I apply that standard, I believe I can 
gain the battle. The question to be discussed is this : 
" That the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, contains evidence beyond all other books of its 
divine origin." That is the proposition. Allow me to 
explain that the term Bible comes from a Greek word 
which signifies "a book;" and which is applied to the 



60 THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 

Bible, by way of eminence, and sets it forth as the best 
book in the world. Scripture is derived from the Latin 
word scriptura, and means a writing. Inspiration is 
derived from inspiro, meaning to breathe, and I main- 
tain that this book (the Bible) is given by inspiration of 
God, and written by men of God, who spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost. What do we understand 
by the term inspiration ? Here we have a definition that 
refers to the inspiration of the Bible. It may be defined 
as 

"Any supernatural influence of God upon the mind of a 
rational creature, whereby it is formed to any degree of intel- 
lectual improvement beyond what it would at that time, and 
under those circumstances have attained in a natural way, that 
is, by the usual exercise of those faculties unassisted by any 
special divine interposition." 

I maintain that this book (the Bible) contains that, 
and offers evidence for it. Then I would say, as I be- 
lieve -that the inspiration of the Bible can be_ejst ablished 
from y other points. Notice the standing of Christians, 
in connection with this. The evidence is internal, ex_ 
•ternal and ■ collateral. First, I would notice the fulfil- 
ment of its prophecies ; second, the performance of 
: miracles; third, the effects produced by it upon the 
world. As I will not have time' this evening to take up 
ihe whole argument, I will, of course, by your permis- 
sion, fix upon one point : ; that is the fulfilroent of diving 
prophecies. I will proceed to establish that Qo<\, in his 
providence and wisdom— ^ who foresaw everything from 
the beginning — caused through a succession of ages the 
fulfilment of prophecy to be a sign, and events were 
prophesied that otherwise could not have been known. 
Before I proceed further, I would remark, by the way, 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBAlE. 6S 

in regard to the Bible, and the necessity of its inspira- 
tion. I would say, first of all, that I i\o not believe in 
the literal inspiration of the English Version of the 
Bible. That was simply a work of man, in translating 
the Bible from the original. I do not believe in what 
is c lied the verbal inspiration of even the original. I 
do not believe that every word in the original was given 
literally as by inspiration. I would also admit, Mr, 
Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, that there are cer- 
tain human elements in the Bible as well as divine; 
and the human are those which are our opinions, and 
the divine are those comprising the spiritual revelation 
of God. For instance, take the genealogical record of 
the Jews. That record could be known without a divine 
revelation. These are not in themselves, abstractly sap- 
posed to be inspired; but form elements through which 
God speaks to mankind, which, under other circum- 
stances, -would not have been made known to the world. 
Having made this admission, and having qualified our 
position so far, we now proceed to assert that divine 
inspiration is not only of God; but God has inspired 
men to write great truths in his book, and has made 
known to the world that which never could have been 
obtained by man, by the use of science ot search. Of 
course in making this known he has made man the 
medium. God was the inspirer, God was the teacher, 
and the source of truth, and the great being who, 
through man, communicated his thoughts and will unto 
the world. "God -who at sundry times and in divers 
manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by 
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of 'all things, by 
wliom also he made the world " (Hebrews i. 1, 2). Age 
after age has be3n employed; prophet after prophet has 



62 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

been used; the same spirit moved all of them, and these 
men were moved of the Holy Ghost. In regard to proph- 
ecies to establish this point, this is the position I take: 
That those prophets foretold certain things, and that 
those things were foretold long ages before the events 
took place, and in some cases even hundreds of years 
passed away before the events transpired. This would 
prove that there was no collusion, and that the event 
did not take place before the prophecy. These predic- 
tions have reference to two points; they have reference, 
first, to cities and countries, and in the second place, to 
the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the great object and sub- 
ject of prophecy. We shall not have time this evening 
to point out all the cities and all the countries, circum- 
stances concerning which were foretold in ancient times. 
We will therefore make selections and seize upon a few 
of the most salient, and also prominent cities and coun- 
tries relative to this subject. First, I would refer to that 
of Jerusalem, which was the most remarkable and 
wonderful city the world has ever seen. This city has 
had more occurrences of vast importance in connection 
with it than any other city that ever was built, or caused 
its towers to ascend towards the sky. While the Lord 
Jesus Christ was tabernacling on this earth, and had 
commenced his public ministry, he was once coming 
towards Jernsalem, and knowing its past and all the 
circumstances in which it was placed, and being ac- 
quinted with all her conduct and crimes and disobedi- 
ence, he gazed on the city. Musing upon the circum- 
stances of history in the past, of guilt and condemnation 
in the present, and looking forward to the future, his 
heart was touched, and his eyes filled with tears, and 
he wept. Then he said unto her, "If thou hadst known, 
even thou, at least in this, thy day, the things which 



THE UNDERWOOD - MABPLES DEBATE. 63 

belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thy 
eyes" (Luke xix. 42). That is a prediction. Again Christ 
said: "O Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and 
stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would 
I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doih 
gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not. 
Behold, your home is left unto you desolate. And verily, 
I say unto you, ye shall not see me, until the time come 
when ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the 
name of the Lord " (Luke xiii. 34-35). Turning to an 
earlier prophecy in the Book of Deuteronomy, xxviii. 
49-57, we have an exact description' of the calamities 
which should befall that city. 

" The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from 
the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation 
whose tongue thou shalt not understand. A nation of fierce 
countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, 
nor shew favor to the young; And he shall eat the fruit of 
thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed 
— which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or 
the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have 
destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, 
until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou 
trustedst, throughout all thy land, and he shall besiege thee 
in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which, the Lord thy 
God hath given thee. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine 
own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which 
the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the 
straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: So that 
the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye 
shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his 
bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall 
leave; So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh 
cf his children whom he shall eat— because he hath nothing 
left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine 



64 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

e ;emies shall distress thee in all thy gates. The tender and 
delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set 
the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and 
tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her 
bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, And 
toward her young that cometh out from between her feet, and 
toward her children which she shall bear— for she shall eat 
them J or want of all things secretly in the seige and strait- 
ncss, Wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates." 

All those circumstances had a literal fulfilment, as 
described a thousand years before, and this is one of 
the points by which 1 seek to establish that there is in 
the world an omnipresent and omnipotent power, con- 
troiin^- all events, and bringing to pass all circumstances 
which had literally been foretold by his prophets 

That prediction was uttered more than a thousand 
years before the time came that it had literal fulfilment, 
and here you have the circumstances of the Roman army, 
as led forth by Titus, the Roman General, after the Lord 
was crucified; after the spirit was poured out, and after 
the Christians had commenced to publish the gospel, 
and a thousand years after the prediction. The follow- 
ing testimony is from Jo^ephus, in his description of 
the wars of the Jews, Book vi, 3 chap. sec. 3: 

"Now of those that perished by famine in the city, the num- 
ber was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were 
unspeakable; for if so mu'.h as the shadow of any kind of food 
did anywhere appear a war was commenced presently, and the 
dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatch- 
ing from each ether the most miserable supports of life. Nor 
would men believe that those who were dying hid no food; 
but the robbers would search them when they were expiring 
lest any one should have concealed food in their bosoms, and 



THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. 65 

counterfeited dying; ray, these robbers gaped for want, and 
r n about stumbling and staggering along like mad clogs, and 
reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men: 
they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into 
the very same houses two or three times in one and' the same 
day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it ob- 
liged them to chew everything, while they gathered such 
things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and 
endured to cat them; nor did they at length abstain irom gir- 
dles and shoes, and the very leather which belonged to thdr 
shields they pulled ell and gnawed; the very wisps of old hay 
became food to some, and some gathered up fibres end hold 
a very small weight of them for four Attic (drachms). But 
why should I describe the shameless impudence that the fam- 
ine brought on men in their eating inanimate things while I 
am going to relate a matter of fact, the like to which no his- 
tory relates, either among the Greeks or Barbarians! It is hor- 
rible to speak of it, and incredible when heard. I had indeed 
willingly omitted this calamity of ours, that I might not seem 
to deliver what is so portentous to posterity, but that I have 
innumerable witnesses to it in my own age; and besides, my 
country would have had little reason to thank me for sup- 
pressing the miseries that she underwent at this time." 

The second case to which I shall refer is Egypt. It 
was established by the posterity of Ham, and was thou- 
sands of years ago in great prosperity, and her friends 
thought that she never should be destroyed^ but owing 
to her sins and crimes, judgment hung over her, and 
evil, like a vulture,. consumed her greatness, her power, 
and her glory, and she to-day is but an obscure country. 

Ezekiel says: "Egypt shall be a base kingdom— the 
basest of the kiogdoms.; neither shall it exalt i:self 
any more above the nations. I will sell the land into the 
hand of the wicked. I will make it waste and ail that 



66 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

is therein by the hand of strangers. There shall be no 
more a prince of the land of Egypt" (Ezekiel, xxix, 14, 
15). To prove this statement to be true, I will call into 
court certain witnesses, and among them even Infidels. 
Hogg says : 

" The entire country and all that it contains belongs to the 
Government. The people are mere appendages of the soil— 
their labors and lives equally subject to his arbitrary will. 
Like the Israelites of old, groaning under the burden, and 
smarting under the lash, their resources are unfeelingly dimin- 
ished yet they are compelled to supply the insatiable demands 
of an inexorable task-master." 

" Such is the state of Egypt. Deprived twenty -three centu- 
ries ago of their natural proprietors, she had seen her fertile 
fields successively a prey to the Persians, the Macedonians, the 
Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Georgians, and at length, 
the race of Tartars, distinguished by the name of Ottaman 
Turks. The Mamelukes, purchased as slaves and introduced as 
soldiers, soon usurped the power and elected a leader. If their 
first establishment was a singular event, their continuance is not 
less extraordinary. They are replaced by slaves, brought by 
the original country. The system of oppression is methodical. 
Everything the traveler sees or hears reminds him he is in the 
country of slavery and tyranny " (Volney's Travels, "Vol. I). 

" The traveler meets with nothing but misery, resulting from 
the rapacity of oppression; its inhabitants are profoundly ignor 
ant, both in moral and physical knowledge; nothing is talked 
of but intestine troubles, the public misery, pecuniary extor- 
tions, bastinadoes and murders. Justice herself puts to death 
without formality." 

I will now turn to Edom, or Iduamea, and show you 
that the prophecies uttered 588, 590 and 758 years before 
Christ have had a literal fulfilment. 

" From generation to generation it shall lie waste " (Isaiah, 
xxxiv, 10). 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 67 

"Upwards of thirty ruined towns absolutely deserted " 
(Volney, Vol. ii, p. 344); 

"None shall piss through it forever and ever" (Isaiah 
xxxiv). 

" This country Ins not been visited by any traveler " (Vol- 
ney, Vol. ii, p. 344). 

' : It shall be a habitation for dragons " (Isaiah, xxxiv). 

"The Arabs in general avoid them, on account of the enor- 
mous scorpions with which they swarm " (Volney's Travels). 

" I have made Esau bare " (Jer. xlix). 

"The depth of sand precludes all vegetation" or herbage" 
(Brickhardt's Travels, p. 442). 

In that we have almost an exact and a literaV fulfil- 
ment, and that could be done by nothing else than the 
power of a divine Jehovah. The second point is those 
references to the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the great 
object and subject of prophecy. Concerning him I find 
that there are no less than thirty-eight predictions, some 
of which were uttered two thousand years before his in- 
carnation, and some a great number of years before that. 
And yet before he came into the world, and in his incar- 
nation, every one of these prophecies had a fulfilment, 
and therefore I maintain that no book in the world can 
produce such an array of prophecy, and such a distinct 
and undeniable fulfilment as in this case. Secondly, at 
this stage of the proceedings, I maintain that the Bible 
has evidence, above all the other books in the world, of 
its divine origin. 



Mr. Underwood. 

I will first, this evening, refer to the preliminary re- 
marks of my opponent. He says he will abide by the 
laws of reason and the laws of truth. That is good, 



68 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

but I cannot forget that those who indulge in such ex- 
pressions, who make such fair and pleasant promises 
are sometimes the last to abide by them. He gives his 
so-called logical definition of truth for the third time, 
and perhaps three times three he will tell you that truth 
is of three kinds, physical, mathematical and moral. 
He tells you what a syllogism is, but we have not yet 
seen an application of it. "We may before the debate is 
through. We will be pleased to see him employ any 
method of reasoning that suits him, and we will be sat- 
isfied with good evidence to whichever department of 
truth it belongs, " physical,, mathematical, or moral. " 
He says h.3 Will bring to the support of his position in- 
ternal, external and collateral evidence, and then tells 
you that he will bring forward prophecies, miracles, etc., 
in demonstration of his position. We will try to be 
patient waiting for him to do all this. 

In regard to the Bible as we have it, is it probable 
God would make his will known in such a way that it 
would be subject to errors and misinterpretations? 
Would he not rather inscribe it on the vault of heaven 
in characters of living light, so that all could under- 
stand it, or rather would he not have impressed it on 
the mi d and implanted it in the consciousness of man? 
The very idea of an objective revelation implies that 
God made a mistake in man, that he had to supply the 
original defect by work of a supplementary character. 

We are told that the prophecies of the Bible were 
uttered or written hundreds of years before the events 
occurred.. Does a prophecy imply divine inspiration? 
By lnirai.n judgment and sagacity we foretell various 
events. The weather, the result of wars, peace policies 
and various plans and measures, changes in govern- 
ment, are foreseen and foretold with more or less accu- 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 69 

racv. Philosophers and politicians are prophets in their 
clay. Abraham Lincoln sad — speaking of my own 
country — ''This nation cannot remain permanently half 
s'ave and half free." Rousseau predicted the French 
Revolution. The Empress Josephine, when a girl, was 
told by an old negress the high position she would 
occupy. A ison, the historian, gave this, and it is sus- 
taine I by good authority. Josephine told the same 
story, and it made a deep impression on her mind. 
While in the convent she related her experience and 
promised positions of honor to her companions, which 
she actually lived to bestow upon some of the number. 
Was that old negress inspired? My friend will say no! 
yet he will rind it difficult to explain the coincidence, as 
well attested and quite as remarkable as any in the 
Bib e. 

Prophecies of a general character can safely be made. 
I might say that in the cour-e of time New York city 
will be destroyed, and it is probable that such will be 
the case, as aggregation implies segregation, formation 
implies dissolution; beginning implies end. Cities in 
lime decay, and other places become the centres of pop- 
u'ation. But if I were to say that at a definitely-named 
time New York city would go down amidst the thunders 
of an earthquake, and three persons only would survive, 
and I should give their names, that would be a prophecy 
worthy of special notice, for it would possess what but 
few of the Bible prophecies possess, circumstantiality of 
event and definiteness of statement. Those who call 
our attention' to the prophecies of the Bible should show 
that they coincide with the events prophesied, that they 
have not been tampered with to correspond with the 
occurrence, that the event was real and the narration o*' 
it corrct, and that it could not have been foreseen by 



70 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 

human sagacity. Will not my opponent admit these 
criteria are reasonable and just? But, tested by them, 
where is the prophecy in the Bible that can be adduced 
in proof of its divinity? I affirm that the prophecies 
upon which so much stress is laid are a rope of sand. 
My opponent has selected a few, but not those the most 
generally referred to. The latter I have lately examin- 
ed, and the demonstrations of their weakness, as shown 
in my lectures, have been published in " Both Sides," 
and perhaps he does not think it wise to bring them 
forward. He refers to Jerusalem. Allow me to remark 
that almost all the cities of the East have gone through 
similar revolutions, and not a fate similar to that which 
has befallen the "Holy City." In Deuteronomy there 
is a long array of curses, and the writer goes on to say 
"if they would serve God and obey the law, they should 
be prosperous; if not, God would send inflictions." 
Some of the threatenings have been, some clearly have 
not been realized. But this cannot be denied : when the 
Jews set up idols, and Solomon was an idolater, the 
land of Judea was in the beauty and grandeur of her 
palmiest days. In the days when Judea was pious and 
humble, her children were carried into captivity. She 
worshiped Jehovah most faithfully when she was carried 
into a strange land. When sh« worshiped Baal she was 
at the zenith of her glory, and then the temple was 
built of which we have such a grand account in the 
Bible. How will my friend get over this fact? There 
are a number of predictions in reference to Judea, some 
of which say that it shall be destroyed and some that 
it shall endure for ever. It is impossible that both can 
be fulfilled. The fact is that Jerusalem, like other 
cities, has played her part in the history of the world, 
and shared the fate of other cities. These are some of 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 71 

the prophecies in the Bible, in respect to the children 
of Israel, which were never fulfilled : 

" For the Lord will have mercy on Jacoh, and set them in 
their own land; and the strangers shall be joined with them, 
and they shall cleave to the house .of Jacob. And the people 
shall take them, and bring them to their place, and the house of 
Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants 
and handmaids; and they shall take them captives whose cap- 
tives they were ; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 
And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall give 
thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from thy 
hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve" (Isaiah, 
xiv. 1-3). 

"Thus said the Lord God: Behold I will take the children of 
Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will 
gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. 
And I will make them one nation in the land upon the moun- 
tains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all, and they 
shall be no more two -nations, neither shall they be divided in!o 
two kingdoms any more at all. And David my servant shall be 
king over them, and they shall have one shepherd. They shall 
also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do 
them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto 
Jacob, my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they 
shall dwell therein, even they and their children, and their chil- 
dren's children forever, and my servant David shall be their 
prince forever " (Ezekiel xxxii, 21-26). 

The preceding are the Bible prophecies which have 
never been fulfilled, and are as clear and unequivocal 
in their language as any which the gentleman has al- 
luded to. Here are more: 

" Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and 
will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own 
and move no more, neither shall the children of wickedness 



72 THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 

afflict thee any more as afore'ime. . . . And when thy 
clays be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I wil 1 
set i;p thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowils, 
and I will establish his kingdom. lie shall build an house for 
my name, and I will establish the tlironc of his kingdom for- 
ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. If he com- 
mit iniquity. I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with 
the stripe of the children of men. But my mercy shall not 
depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put 
away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be 
established forever, before thee, thy throne shall be established 
forever. According to all this vision, so did Nathan speak 
unto David" (2. Sam., vii, 10-16). 

" At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the 
Lord, and all nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of 
the Lord, to Jerusalem. ... In those days the house of 
Judith s!:all walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come 
together out of the land of the north to the land that I have 
giveu for an inheritance unto your father'.' (Jer. iii, 17-18). 

These predictions are as clear as possible that the 
throne of David should be perpetual, and that the city 
of Jerusalem was to be the headquarters of the world. 
But theologians have given a recondite or spiritual 
meaning to them. My friend refers to the eating of 
children by their mothers, in Jerusalem. It often oc- 
curred in antiquity when cities were besieged and the 
people were almost starving. It has taken place in 
modern sieges. It would have been true if predicted of 
almost any aucient nation. We now come to the proph- 
ecy respecting Egypt. Does it say the time that Egypt 
shall be a place of darkness and desolation? No! It 
merely gives a general statement that she shall be des- 
olate and unfortunate. The old Egyptian power had 
beon brought in opposi ion to Judea, and these proph- 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 73 

ets, to suit the popular idea, hurled their maledictions 
against it. What are the facts ? Egypt has undergone 
the same changes that other countries have. Look at 
Greece, the land of poetry, the land of learning, admired 
for her love of the beautiful, and her gifts of intellectual 
endowments to posterity. Look at her, where is she 
to-day? Trodden beneath the heel of the Turk she has 
been reduced to a slavery that is almost unknown in 
any other part of the world. See Koine, that city which 
sits upon the seven hills, and which has hardly been 
equaled by any recent collection of people, now it is 
inhabited by a most degenerate race. This prophecy 
respecting Egypt, however, has never been fulfilled; it 
has been falsified in regard to several particulars. Here 
are the words of Ezekiel from the 29th chapter and 9th 
to 11th verses. 

"And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste, and they 
shall know that I am the Lord. ... 1 will make the land 
of Egypt utterly waste and desolate from the tower of Syrene 
even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass 
through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years." 

I say that there is not a reliable scholar or any his- 
torian who will say that there was for forty years after 
the time the prophecy was uttered a time when the foot 
of man did not tread upon it. Look at Alexandria, the 
revolution she has undergone, and yet her importance 
in the East. Some of those Egyptians are a very shrewd 
people, and know enough to cheat the Yankees and 
Britishers who go there to see curiosities of that mys- 
terious land. Egypt, in the last few years, has been 
undergoing such rapid changes, that she looms up, and 
promises to be a great country in the future. Well 
then my friend says there are some thirty-eight proph- 



74 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE, 

ecies that foretell the appearance of Christ. That is an 
old statement, and what he is here to do is not to in- 
dulge in that kind of statements, bnt bring the proof 
fo war I wish that he would bring them forward, so 
that I can subject them to an examination. The Christ 
is not the person at all expected by the Jews. The Old 
Testament predicts a royal Messiah of the house of 
David. According to the New Testament, Jesus was the 
son of a Jewish maiden, whose Davidical blood is no- 
where declared, either directly or by implication. The 
Old Testament Messiah was to sit upon the throne of 
David, and all nations were to serve and obey him. The 
Jews were to make captives those (the Babylonians) 
whose captives they were. The heathens were to be 
their servants. Jesus declared his kingdom was not of 
the world. He once rocle into Jerusalem in a ridiculous 
style, but never sat on David's throne, and the Jews, 
instead of making the Assyrian captives, were subjuga- 
ted and dispersed. The Jewish Messiah was to be a 
mighty prince, a universal potentate. Jesus was poor, 
lived upon alms, was persecuted, and died the death of 
a malefactor, crucified between two thieves. The reign 
of the Jewish Messiah was to be followed by universal 
peace. Jesus said: "Think not that I came to bring 
peace on earth, but a sword." In the time of the Mes- 
siah, wars were to cease, righteousness w T as to nourish, 
and mankind to be made happy. Whether this has 
taken place, the experience of almost nineteen centuries, 
and the present state of the world, can enable every 
one to determine for himself. In the times of the Mes- 
siah, Israel was to be gathered and planted in his own 
land in honor and prosperity. Cut soon after the death 
of Jesus, the Jewish nation underwent the most dread- 
ful calamities, and the Jews are now scattered to the 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 75 

four querters of the globe. With the advent of the old 
Testament Messiah, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt and 
beautified, and to be forever the capital of the world. 
A few years after the death of Jesus, it was totally de- 
stroyed, and has not been rebuilt. The Messiah of the 
Old Testament was to reign in glory without end. Jesus 
died ignominiously 1800 years ago, and has never been 
heard from since the death of his disciples, up to the 
present time, Thursday, July 22, 1875. Here are proph- 
ecies also bearing on the advent of the Messiah, none 
of which have been fulfilled. 

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke 
many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, 
and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation, shall not lift up 
sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more " 
(Isaiah ii. 4). 

" And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard 
shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and 
the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. * * 
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the 
weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den." (Isaiah 
xi, 6). 

I say that we have a contrast between them too great 
to admit of their identity. I know the passages com- 
monly cited very well. He can bring you the passages 
in Isaiah, the liii, ix, v, xi, vii and a number of others, 
where it says, "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." 
Let him quote them so that I shall be able to examine 
and show that they refer to events that transpired long 
before Jssus was born. You may say that that is a bold 
position to take, but it is an honest one at least, and I 
believe that I can maintain it. The Messianic prophe- 
cies are among those admitted to have a historic sig- 



76 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

nification. The theologians say that they have two mean- 
ings—an obvious and a recoadite meaning. A further 
instance is, that when the children were slain, they say 
it was to fulfill that which was spoken of by "Jeremy 
the prophet, In Kama was there a voice heard, lamenta- 
tion, and weeping, and great mourning: Kachel weeping 
for her children, and would not be comforted, because 
they are not." (Mat. ii, 17-18). We turn to Jeremiah 
and we find that it has no such meaning— it is only the 
prophet trying to console the people who are in captiv- 
ity. He tells them to stop weeping for they •' shall yet 
come up from the land of the enemy." The story of the 
slaughter of the infants is a revamp of the Hindoo tale 
of Christna whom the tyrant Cansa sought to destroy. 
Some of the clergy know these facts cannot be met, and 
they would prefer not to have the people attend a debate 
of this kind ; tell the ladies, that if they come here, 
they will hear something to shock their modesty because 
they are afraid if they come here they will become con- 
vinced, and teach their children that these stories are 
false. 



Mr. Marples. 

My opponent admitted the sense and truth of the law, 
to which I said I should appeal, though, at the same 
time, he slightly demurred. If he does not wish to 
stand by the law of logic and reason, why did he sign 
the document to stand by it? It is not a matter of 
opinion as to what is logic, but it is a matter of con- 
sciousness. If I understand the law at all, then the law 
by which this discussion is to be governed is to decide 
by the preponderance of evidence. I will submit his 
statement to that examination, aud if it fails to come up 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 77 

to the standard, then the truth lies on the Christian 
Bide. He said that in order to have a revelation from 
God, it should be in such a form that it would never 
change in anything, and always be the same, and that 
only would be revelation. I will ask this audience if 
they believe that there is an educated man at this debate, 
who would set up a variety of opinions in refutation of 
a statement by God, viz: that there can be no revela- 
tion while there is a variety of opinions in the world. 
If so, why study at all ? Why become scholars ? why 
search to get opinions ? why study logic ? why not go 
back to monkeys ? and from monkeys to pigs, and from 
pigs to birds, and from birds to fishes, and wake up a 
nonentity ? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
gander ! Then he objected to the Bible predictions, and 
said that predictions equally as great had been made in 
comparatively modern times.— Keferred to Abraham Lin- 
coln, who gave his life in behalf of the abolition of 
slavery. If we have a vast amount ef evidence to prove 
it, I ask him to give it in his next reply. Now about the 
weather. Is there any man here who will look forward 
with any degree of certainty and say we shall have a 
certain kind of weather for some time ? How often does 
it come true ? It is pure nonsense to bring forward such 
evidence as that. Then he turns to a number of other 
stories. Could you really give any credence* to such pre- 
diction as these ? Then he goes on to point out certain 
elements as necessary to a fulfillment of a genuine 
prophecy. I ask will any of these predictions which he 
has named bear this test ? If so, I ask him to do so in 
his next speech. The first thing necessary, he said, was 
circumstantiality. I was afraid to weary you with that, 
as I had given you so many to show you that the pre- 
dictions were actually fulfilled, by the evidence of per- 



78 THE UNDERWOOD -MARPLES DEBATE. 

sons who did not believe in the Bible at all. I gave you 
the statement of Volney relative to Egypt, and the 
accompanying prediction. The next point that he makes 
is priority of time. I have shown that some of those 
predictions were uttered thousands of years before they 
took place, and that in every case the prediction was 
uttered, the prophet gave it before the event took place. 
Then my friend goes on to say, that "coming events 
cast their shadows before them." I admit that, and 
maintain that that was not the kind of prediction as 
given in the word of God. Mr. Brindley, in reply to the 
Infidelity and Atheism of Socialism, says: 

" But suppose that, instead of the spirit of prophecy breath- 
ing more or less in every book of Scripture, predicting events 
relative to a great variety of general topics, and delivering be- 
sides almost innumerable characteristics of the Messiah, all 
meeting in the person of Jesus, — there had been only ten men in 
ancient times who pretended to be prophets, each of whom 
exhibited only five independent criteria as to place, government, 
comitant events, doctrine taught, effects of doctrine, character, 
sufferings, or death, the meeting of all which, in one person, 
should prove the reality of their calling as prophets, and of his 
mission in the character they have assigned him. —Suppose, 
moreover, that all events were left to chance merely, and we 
were to compute from the principles employed by mathemati- 
cians in the investigation of such subjects, the probabilty of 
these fifty independent circumstances happening at all. Assume 
that there is, according to the technical phrase, an equal chance 
for the happening or the failure of any one of the specified par- 
ticulars, then the probability against the occurance of all the 
particulars in any way, is that of the fiftiQth power of two to 
unity, that is the probability is greater than 11,250,000,000,- 
000,000 to one, or greater than eleven hundred and twenty five 
millions of millions to one, that all these circumstauces do 
not turn up, even at distinct periods." 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 79 

You have forty-eight against two, and is not that a 
majority? This book shows that the chances are eleven 
hundred and twenty millions of millions to one, that all 
those circumstances do not turn out as predicted, and 
yet these have come up true. Then those other events 
will bear no comparison to these. With regard to 
Egypt, or rather to Jerusalem, to which his remarks had 
reference, he went on to show, speaking of the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, that another prophecy said it was to 
be a prosperous city, and that could not be with a judg- 
ment coming. I will appeal to history whether or net 
the whole of those prophecies did not have their fulfill- 
ment. First, the city was in a properous condition, and 
then, after it had fallen into an idolatrous worship it 
was destroyed and visited by those calamities. My op- 
ponent spoke about the cockatrice den and the throne 
of David. I will refer to that by-and-bye. He says that 
this prediction may as well have been applied to Greece, 
and did so, to show that countries arose and fell with- 
out any predictions. With regard to Greece, I will say 
that in the divine providence of God, she performed a 
great work ! But, where is her glory now ? like that of 
many other countries it is departed. He says that Egypt 
has falsified the statement but did not say what was the 
passage or whether he was referring to Egypt or some 
other place. I read to you the words of the prediction 
and then gave the testimony of Infidels and Sceptics, 
and ancient travelers, in the very words of the predic- 
tion — I find it was fulfilled literally. Then sometimes 
the evidence of a foe is considered superior to that of a 
friend, and I hope that by such evidence, I have estab- 
lished the proposition that the Bible is the word of 
God t I am sorry that my time has gone so quick. The 
last remark put down, is in regard to ancient religions. 



80 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

I have no time to refer to that now, but will take up the 
one in reference to Jesus Christ, and if he likes I will 
give him those passages, provided the proceedings be 
suspended for five minutes. My friend maintained that 
Christ was born of a peasant woman, and maintains that 
he was not of the seed of David. I maintain that by his 
supposed father he sprang from the seed of David. That 
by the the mother he sprang from the seed of David. 
Further, both were in the royal line, and Jesus sprang 
through them from the house of David. I will to-mor- 
row evening place the evidence before you, and estab- 
lish the position that Christ was of the seed of David. 



Me. Undekwood. 

My opponent commenced by asking why I signed a 
paper to stand by what I deny. I have never signed 
any such paper. What I ask is that the gentleman will 
discuss the proposition he has attempted to defend, and 
not take up time with irrelevant or unimportant mat- 
ters. I have not receded nor given any intention that I 
desire to recede from anything I have signed. The in- 
sinuation is unworthy of my friend. 

Now, in regard to the revelation considered from an 
a priori standpoint, I repeat, I should suppose if it 
were to be made, and of an objective character, it would 
be written on the canopy of heaven, so that it would 
not need a priest to explain it. But I said I thought 
any kind of objective revelation implied that God omitted 
something from the original constitution of man. Why 
not, if all-powerful and wise, put into the mind of man 
all necessary knowledge or the capacity, ability and dis- 
position to acquire it, instead of leaving man defect ivo 



TEE UNDERWOOD ~ MARPLES DEBATE. 81 

and then making a revelation to him in book form, with 
all the liabilities of suppression, misinterpretation, mis- 
translation, etc., and entrusting it to an obscure, igno- 
rant people, that perished, as a nation, centuries ago ? 
To add to the absurdity, we must believe that millions 
will be damned for not believing in this book — revela- 
tion ! 

My opponent sees fit to make use of the usual talk 
about cattle, monkeys, pigs, etc., as the ancestors and 
relatives of man according to the theory of Darwin. It 
will do well enough to excite a laugh among the igno- 
rant, but it is out of place in a debate like this, when 
the speakers are supposed to be able and disposed to 
state fairly all the positions they oppose or criticize. 

I will refer again, now, to the subject of prophecy. 
We have a number of prophecies in the Bible falsified 
by history and experience. 

I quote from Mark xvi. 17, 18: 

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my 
name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new 
tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any 
deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the 
sick and they shall recover." 

Would our friend dare take prussic acid into his 
stomach ? Can he handle poisonous reptiles and receive 
no hurt? Can he restore health to the dying man by 
the potency and power of his touch? Can he speak in 
languages in which he has never been taught? 

Again, Jesus is represented as predicting the end of 
the world: "There be some standing here that shall 
not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming 
in his kingdom." As Gibbon remarks: "The revolu- 
tions of eighteen centuries have taught us not to press 
too closely the language of prophecy." 



82 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

It is not my duty to guide my opponent in a debate 
in which he has the affirmative. But I notify him. that 
I am ready any time to take many Biblical prophecies, 
including those concerning Babylon, Tyre, Damascus, 
and Egypt, and show how they fail to correspond with 
the events of history. In regard to the permanency of 
the Israelitish throne, too, the Bible contains many 
erroneous predictions, fond but illusive anticipations of 
the ancient Hebrew mind. 

My opponent characterizes my reference to certain 
remarkable prophecies outside of the Bible, as trifling 
stories. I will quote from the historian, Alison, in 
regard to one of these: 

" The history of Josephine had been very remarkable. She 
was born in the West Indies; and it had early been prophesied 
by an old ncgress that she should lose her first husband, be ex- 
tremely unfortunate, but that she should at* terwasds be greater 
than a queen. This prophecy, the authenticity of which is 
placed beyond a doubt, was fulfilled in the most singular man- 
ner. Her first husband, Alexander Beauharnais, a general in 
the army of the Rhine, had been guillotined during the French 
"Revolution ; and she, who was also imprisoned at the same 
time, was only saved from death by the fall of Robespierre. §o 
strongly was the prophecy impressed on her mind that whiic 
lying in the dungeon of the Conciergerie, expecting every hour 
to be summoned to the Revolutionary Tribunal, she mentioned 
it to her fellow prisoners, and to amuse them named some of 
them as ladies of the bed-chamber — a jest which she afterwards 
lived to realize to one of their number." In a note, Alison 
adds: "The author heard of this prophecy long before Napo- 
leon's elevation to the throne, from the late Countess of Bath 
and the Countess of Aucram, who were educated in the same 
convent with Josephine, and had heard her repeatedly mention 
the circumstance in early youth." 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 83 

I have also the statement of Josephine. It is thus : 

" One day, sometime before my first marriage, while taking 
my usual walk, I observed a number of negro girls assembled 
around an old woman, engaged in telling their fortunes. I 
drew near to observe their proceedings. The old sybil, on be- 
holding me, uttered a loud exclamation, and almost by force 
seized my hand. She appeared to be under the greatest agita- 
tion. Amused at these absurdities, as I thought them, I allow- 
ed her to proceed, saying, ' So you discover something extraor- 
dinary in my destiny?' ' Yes.' ' Is happiness or misfortune to 
be my lot?' 'Misfortune. Ah, stop! and happiness too.' 'You 
take care not to commit yourself, my dame. Your oracles are 
not intelligible.' 'I am not permitted to render them more clear,' 
said the woman, rising her eyes with a mysterious expression to- 
wards heaven. 'But to the point,' I replied, for nay curiosity be- 
gan to be excited. ' What read you concerning me in futurity?' 
'What do I see in the future? You will not believe me if I 
speak.' ' Yes, indeed, I assure you. Come, my good mother, 
what am I to fear and hope?' ' On your head be it then; lis- 
ten: You will be married soon; that union will not be happy. 
You will become a widow and then — then you will be queen of 
France. Some happy years will be yours. But you will die in 
a hospital amid civil commotion.' " 

Trifling stories that he will not bother with! There 
are a good many other things that have been presented 
for his consideration that he will not bother with. He 
says he has mentioned predictions that have been ful- 
filled. He does not tell when the account was written, 
does not show the condition of the country when the 
prediction was made; does not point out anything fore- 
told beyond the sagacity of man to foresee, but jumps 
to the conclusion that the Bible must be inspired be- 
cause he finds two or three verses referring to a region 
corresponding, in several particulars, with certain locali- 



84 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

ties that are now found. To how large, or what partic- 
ular region is referred to? He reads from some clergy- 
man who has taken an extract from Ezekiel, or Isaiah, 
or Jeremiah, or some other writer, and then one from 
the voluminous works of Volney or Eollin, and then 
by the smallest kind of special pleading, makes out his 
coincidences. Why does he not read from Volney's own 
works, instead of reading from some brother minister 
who knows less about the subject than himself? Why 
docs he not take a whole chapter from the Bible, and 
test it by reference to ungarbled accounts of travelers 
or narratives of historians. For instance, Ezekiel de- 
clared no foot should pass through Egypt in forty 
years. Can he quote from any author to show that pre- 
diction has been fulfilled ? We know the contrary is 
true. Let him quote the Bible fairly, and then read 
reliable travelers, and in some places one will be like 
the other, about as the moon is like green cheese. 

He says when the Jews worshiped the Lord they 
were in their greatest prosperity. He is mistaken. It 
was in the days of Solomon, when king and people 
alike were in idolatry, that Israel was in her glory. It 
was not in these days that she worshiped Jehovah and 
knew no other gods. Human sacrifices then were com- 
mon, and even by approval of the highest national au- 
thority. 

I have but little more to answer. The gentleman tells 
you he will not trouble you with details about Jerusa- 
lem, but appeals to your common sense! How can you 
pass a decision without being acquainted with the de- 
tails on a subject of this kind, whether a prophecy 
shows inspiration. He says Greece did her work, and 
her glory departed. The same is true of Judea. W T hero 
to-day is Jerusalem, the pride of Israel ? So not un- 



THE UNDEKWOOD-MARPLES DEBATE. 85 

likely, England and the United States will in time have 
performed their work, although upon the ruins of the 
existing governments, we fondly hope others greater 
and grander may rise. My friend says in regard to 
Egypt he has given the prophecy. I have already told 
how. He may learn even from Bishop Watson that the 
prophecy regarding Egypt has not been fulfilled. He 
assumes that Christ was of the seed of David. He can- 
not trace him to David by the genealogies of Matthew 
and Luke, who deal with Joseph and not with Mary, and 
as Joseph is said not to be the father of Jesus, how 
can his royal blood be inferred ? He says Mary is of 
the House of David. Will he give us his proofs of 
that ? If he will prove it I abandon my position and 
give up the debate. I know he cannot do it. You will 
observe that I labor under one disadvantage. This gen- 
tleman has had the entire day — indeed has had weeks 
— in which to prepare his arguments, while I have only 
the moment to adduce authorities in refutation of his 
wild and undisciiminating remarks. 

I claim to have brought forward Pagan and other 
prophecies which are more wonderful than any in the 
Bible, and those he has brought forward have not in all 
respects been fulfilled. There being no evidence what- 
ever for the inspiration of the Bible, the statement that 
the Bible contains evidence of inspiration above all 
other books, is contrary to the facts of the case. 



86 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

FOURTH NIGHT. 

Mr, Marples. 

As you are all aware, this evening is the second of 
the second proposition — the opening having been placed 
before the audience last evening. First, allow me to 
repeat one thing, and that, in regard to the syllogism 
which was given last evening, forming a rule for our 
debate to-night. The syllogistic mode of argument im- 
plies three propositions: 1. A major; 2. A minor; 3. An 
inference. The amount of evidence to be brought to 
bear this evening, and the standard by which that evi- 
dence is to be tried, is by the moral part of logic. The 
major proposition is, any subject or proposition having 
a preponderance of evidence is considered thoroughly 
established and authenticated. The minor proposition is 
as follows, which I propose to maintain, viz: that the 
Bible is divine above all books, and contains evidence in 
preponderance that such is the case, and the inference 
is, that the Bible is divine. Before I proceed to go into 
the second point, that of miracles, I may as well give 
you to understand what the three points of the discus- 
sion are. 1. The fulfillment of prophecy; 2. The per- 
formance of miracles ; 3. The effects of the Bible upon the 
world. The first point was taken up last eveoing, when 
we went into some of the points relative to the fulfill- 
ment of prophecy when I proved that the prophecies - of 
the Bible were fulfilled. The first was in regard to certain 
cities and countries, and that I established thoroughly. 
The second was the prophecies in regard to the Lord 
Jesus Christ, as found in the Old Testament. I main- 
tain that there are no less than thirty-eight prophecies, 
some delivered four thousand years before the events 
took place, and all of them more than four or five 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 87 

hundred years before their fulfillment. When you con- 
sider that during the period of four thousand years pre- 
dictions uttered by different persons in different count- 
ries and ages, all culminating and converging in one 
point— in the history of one person, it is certainly estab- 
lishing the existence of a supreme, divine and spec- 
ial power. The prediction first given was that the 
seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head and 
the serpent should bruise his heel (Gen. iii, 15). Then 
follows the promise of the Lord to Abraham (Gen. xxii, 
18); the coming of the Shiloh (Gen. xlix, 10); the great 
prophet (Deut. xviii, 15). He was also to be of the seed 
of David, to be born in the town of Bethlehem, and of 
a virgin, as well as a host of other prophecies which 
have special reference to Christ and his kingdom. Can 
you suppose that all these predictions, uttered during 
the course of four thousand years, could ever have been 
fulfilled by chance ? I have evidence this evening, did 
the time permit, concerning each passage, which I could 
place before this audience, and prove to the satisfaction 
of all reasonable persons that they were actually fulfilled. 
Now, dear friends, objection was taken last night, con- 
cerning the statement I made in regard to the fact that 
the Lord Jesus Christ should be of the seed cf David. 
My opponent took exception to this and maintained that 
inasmuch as Joseph who was said to be of the seed of 
David, was not the real but the supposed father of 
Christ, and Mary being only a peasant woman, and hav- 
ing no connection with the royal house of David, and 
she being the actual mother of Christ, he was therefore 
not of the seed of David. I understand that to be the 
objection. I came forward at the close of the meeting, 
and engaged to prove, first, that Joseph was of the seed 
of David, and that Mary also was of the seed of David. 



88 THE TJXBERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

Now, I just take the word of God itself and by a simple 
explanation; I think I shall succeed in making this sub- 
ject rise up before the audience, as clear as that two and 
two make four. Well now 3 take the New Testament, and 
look at the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ as to 
his ancestry, and also the root from which he sprang, 
and you find that Matthew gives the genealogy, and the 
order which he observes is this : He commences with 
Abraham and traces down through David, and through 
Solomon until at last he comes to Matthan who begat 
Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of 
whom was born Jesus, called the Christ. But now, dear 
friends, I want you to turn unto Luke, and there in the 
third chapter you will find the genealogy of Jesus. 
This takes a different direction and commences with the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and goes on through Seth to Adam, 
and then to God who is the source of all life. Now, I 
want you to note, that whilst Matthew traces the gen- 
ealogy of Joseph through David and Solomon unto the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and Luke traces it backward through 
Mary, the wife of Joseph who was the son (son-in-law) 
of Heli, and descended from Nathan, another of the 
sons of David, Luke gives the genealogy of Mary and 
not of Joseph. Solomon was one of the sons of David, 
and there was another named Nathan, and it is from 
him that Mary sprang. Secondly, both come to the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and Christ was therefore, on both sides, the 
son of David, I know that my worthy opponent will 
take exception to this, as a mere statement and wanting 
proof. I want just to note that we have it stated thus 
in the twenty-third verse of the third chapter of the 
gospel by Luke, ''And Jesus himself began to be about 
thirty years of age, being, (as was supposed) the son of 
Joseph, who was the son of Heli." And in this passage 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 89 

I maintain that Heli was the natural father of Mary, and 
Joseph having married the daughter of Heli, who was 
called Mary, therefore became the son of Heli; really 
not being the son of Heli, but the son-in-law. So that 
Christ instead of not having been as stated by the prophe- 
cies of the Bible, of the seed of David, was of that line, 
first by his supposed father Joseph, and also through his 
mother, who was the daughter of Heli, and who came from 
David through Nathan. My opponent may ask for author- 
ity, and, supposing that he objects to my statement and 
says that Heli was not the father of Mary, then T will 
ask him who was her father? That is fair, is it not? 
Fair play is a jewel, you know! Well, we understand 
that Heli was the father of Mary, and that Joseph mar- 
ried Mary, and secondly being the son-in-law of Heli, 
the father of Mary, and Heli sprang from David through 
Nathan, and consequently our position is established. 
I suppose this may be called an "ipse dixit," and my 
opponent may want authority on the subject. My word, 
I suppose, is worth comparatively little. This is a 
statement by the Eev. J. C. Kyle in his " Expository 
thoughts on the Gospel": 

" The third and most probable explanation of the difficulty 
is to regard Luke's genealogy as the genealogy of Mary and not 
of Joseph. Heli was the father of Mary, and the father-in-law 
by his marriage, of Joseph. It is not said that Heli 'begat' 
Joseph, and that the Greek does not necessarily mean that 
Joseph was 'his son' is clear from the expressions used about 
Mary and Jude in the other places of the New Testament. It 
is Mary's family therefore, and not Joseph's, that Luke de- 
scribes, and Joseph's family and not Mary's that is described 
by Mathew. In leaving this question I may be allowed to 
remark that the view I venture to maintain is that of Brentius, 
Gemarus, Chemnitius, Spanhekn, Surenbusino, Poole, Bengel, 



90 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

Pardeus, Lightfoot, Clovius, Gill, Burkett, Henry, Scott and 
Clark, among Protestants; and of Janrenius, Barradius, Stella 
and others, amorg Roman Catholics: and it is also a remark- 
able fact that Rabbinical writers, speaking of Mary in very 
reproachful terms, distinctly call her 'the daughter of Heli.'" 

Mr. Ryle goes on through other details, and admits 
that there are some difficulties in the way of this expla- 
nation, but there are far greater in the way of the other, 
and our argument is to be decided by a preponderance 
of evidence. The Jewish writers, as you will perceive, 
who do not believe in Christ, refer to Mary as the 
''daughter of Heli." But you may ask why does not the 
genealogy give her name ? I answer that it was not the 
custom of the Jews to record their wife's name, but 
always to record the wife's name in her husband's name. 
The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Ecclesiastical and other his- 
tory by McClintock, mentions the fact that the Jews 
recorded merely by the names of the males; therefore 
Joseph would be accounted the son of Heli. I should 
have taken up the subject of miracles, but find that I 
shall not be able to do so just at present, but will detain 
you a little while longer on the present point, and upon 
tiie person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The 
influence he has had and will have upon men, the great 
good he has accomplished and will accomplish in this 
world, and that the grand salvation will ultimately be 
brought down to all mankind. I am going to bring into 
this meeting no less a person and no less distinguished 
in the world of logic, than that of the name and work 
of John Stuart Mill, the so-called Atheist. It is a work 
entitled " Three Essays upon Religion." Concerning the 
Lord Jesus Christ he says: 

"Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the 



THE UNDEBWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 91 

character which Christianity has produced by holdiDg up in 
a DKine Person, a standard of excellence, and a model of im- 
itation, is available even to the absolute unbeliever, and can 
never more le lost to humanity. For it is Christ rather than 
God, whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern 
of perfection for humanity. It is the God Incarnate, more 
than the God of the Jews or of Nature, who being idealized 
has taken so great and salutary a hold on the modern mirrd. 
And "whatever else may be taken away from us by rational 
criticism, Christ is still left a unique figure, not more unlike all 
his precursors than all his followers, even those who had the 
direct bemfit of his personal teaching. 

4 ' It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the gospels 
is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is 
admirable has been superadded by the tradition of his follow- 
ers. The tradition of followers suffices to insert any number 
of marvels, and may have inserted all the miracles which he 
is reputed to have wrought. But who among his disciples or 
amoDg their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings 
ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character 
revealed in the gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of 
Galilee, as certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyn- 
crasies were of a totally different sort, still less the early Chris- 
tian writers in whom nothing is more evident than that the 
good which was in tbem was all derived, as they always pro- 
fessed that it was derived, from a higher source." 

Is not that a magnificent extract to prove the Bible 
contains evidence above all other book in the world, of 
its divine origin? If I do not misunderstand my worthy 
opponent, he pledged himself, if I succeeded in proving 
the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was of the seed of 
David, and Mary was his mother, he would at once 
abandon this debate. I should be extremely sorry if he 
were to fulfil that promise, and abandon this debate, 
but I think that, inasmuch as he did voluntarily make 



92 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

this pledge, he should acknowledge he is beaten. I ask 
the audience if that is not fair ? I will now say a word or 
two on that upon which we found the divine inspiration of 
the Bible, and that is miracles. Now, what is a mira- 
cle? A miracle I suppose to be a supernatural effect 
produced for the purpose of confirming a mission and 
its divinity. In the performance of miracles in ancient 
times we have two objects. 1. Of mercy; 2. Of divine 
evidence. A proof that the performer was sent of God. 
Now, had I time, I would review some of the leading 
miracles in the Bible, and endeavor to answer some of 
the objections to them. I will say that in the Old 
Testament, we have miracles wrought by Moses and the 
prophets. In the New Testament as wrought by Christ 
and his apostles. We have no miracles now, because 
this is the age of reason, and I stand upon this platform, 
and repeat that Tom Paine and myself are as one as to 
the title of his book; but we are opposite in the object 
of his book. He wrote it to deify reason, and set 
it up in opposition to revelation. I believe this is 
the age of reason, and would use it not to oppose reve- 
lation, but to understand it. I know that in this book 
there are apparent difficulties. I bring my reason to 
bear, and by its guidance understand them. If they do 
not yield to my reason, then my reason is defective, 
and I say let God's word be true, if every man be a 
liar. This is the age of reason and not of miracles. The 
age of miracles closed with the book of revelation. 
We have the Lord Jesus Christ as the great medium 
interceding with God — he is the great sum and sub- 
stance of the gospel,— he is the great medium through 
which we can inherit life hereafter. 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 93 

Me. Underwood. 

With great pleasure, so far as I am concerned, I 
resume this debate this evening; but judging from the 
demonstrations, there are some here this evening who 
think that I have no right to make my address during 
this debate. And perhaps some here are in the condi- 
tion of the judge who., having heard the argument on 
one side, said, "Let us hear no more, gentlemen, be- 
cause if I hear the other side I may change my mind." 
My opponent said that I had promised, if he proved 
that Christ was of Levitical blood, and that if Mary 
was his mother, I would abandon the debate. My state- 
ment was that if this gentleman proved that Mary was 
of Davidical blood I would abandon this debate. 
Mr. Marples.— That is not the point at issue. 

[Mr. Underwood's reply became inaudible, but it was evi- 
dent, from a few words we were enabled to distinguish, that 
Mr. Marples had mistaken the word " Levitical " for the word 
" Davidical," used by Mr. Underwood. A perfect babel ensued, 
mingled with yells, hisses and various cries. It was feared that 
some of the rasher portion of the orthodox party present would 
resort to force, but to tbe credit of the Rev. Mr. Marples, it must 
be said that he used his utmost endeavors to prevent a disturb- 
ance, and eventually soothed the audience down, acknowledging 
that he had mistaken the word " Levitical " for "Davidical." 
We cannot refrain from here making the remark that too much 
praise cannot be bestowed upon Mr. Marples for his gentlemanly 
conduct atvthis juncture of the proceedings, when, through a 
supposed wrong, the more rash portion of both parties would 
probably have resorted to blows, in which the Christian side 
would have won. Instead of allowing this to be done, Mr. Mar- 
ples acted in a manner that should gladden the heart of every 
Christian, that they have in their ranks such a uoble-minded 
champion, and that of every Freethinker, that they had such a 
justice loving and fair opponent. — Reporter. 



94 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

Mr. Underwood resumed. The words that I have 
down here are, that if he succeeded in establishing Mary 
was of Davidical blood I would abandon the debate. I 
maintain that the point at issue is whether Mary was 
of lineal descent from the house of David. I made that 
statement not rashly, but with a full understanding of 
all its issues. If you turn to the genealogies you will 
find in Luke what appears like an after thought, and 
in Matthew a list of names, commencing with Abraham 
(for they commenced recording that way), down to Abia, 
of whom it is said that Zacharias, the husband of Eliz- 
abeth, was descended. Now, suppose we turn to this 
gentleman's theory. He says that there are two geneal- 
ogies, and that they are different. That is very true, 
and it has been a source of annoyance to many theolo- 
gians. He says that Heli is the father of Mary, when 
there is not the slightest intimation of the kind. Even 
Luke says Joseph was of the house of David. Nothing 
of the kind is said of Mary. 

" To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of 
the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary " (Luke 
i. 27). "And Joseph went up from Galilee out of the city of 
Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called 
Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David " 
(Luke ii. 4). 

Nothing whatever is said about Mary's Davidical 
descent. Mary was cousin of Elizabeth. Elizabeth was 
of the daughters of. Aaron, but not of the house of 
David, as can be seen from Luke, chap. i. verse 5. The 
husband of Elizabeth was of the course of Abia, which 
was in the lino of David, as given in the genealogy of 
Matthew (Matt. 1. 7), but it is nowhere said that Eliza- 
beth was of royal blood. We will turn to some author- 
ity on the subject, since my opponent thinks a little 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 95 

reading from somebody else will settle the matter. Here 
is the opinion of the Eev. Dr. McNaught, from his 
"Doctrine of Inspiration," page 28, where, speaking of 
the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, he says : 

"On the first glance these genealogies, as given by Matthew 
and Luke, are so evidently different that it has been the ordi- 
nary, if not invariable practice of Christian harmonists and 
commentators to represent the former Evangelist as recording 
the descent of Joseph, while the latter Evangelist is said to 
have given the pedigree of Mary. We will say nothing of the 
plausibility of this explanation, which acknowledges the gene- 
alogies to be wholly different, and supposes they belong to two 
persons. Oar questions must rather affect the truthfulness of 
this mode of explaining away the difficulty. Let the reader 
bear in mind how Matthew states that ' Jacob begat Joseph the 
husband of Mary,' and how Luke's words are 'Joseph which 
was the son of Heli,' and then let the reader say whether it is 
truthful to allege that these different genealogies belong to dif- 
ferent individuals. Is it not plain that each of them professes 
to trace the lineal descent of one and the same man, Joseph ? 
If we are still to be told that when Matthew professes to give 
the descent of Joseph, he is to be understood as giving the de- 
scent of Mary, then we simply rejoin that such an explanation 
is nothing more nor less than an abandonment of the idea of 
inspirational infallibility; for it represents the Bible as saying 
one thing and meaning another." 

When a distinguished clergyman and author like Mc- 
Naught declares there is no evidence that either gene- 
alogy is that of Mary; when he is compelled to concede 
from the standpoint of a Christian that there is no evi- 
dence that Mary is of the house of David, I may surely 
say, "Not proven!" I may add the statement of an 
able and candid English writer, John Scott (Life of 
Christ, p. 20): 



96 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

" Paul lays great stress on the circumstance that the promise 
given to Abraham was made, not to his seed, as of Mary, but 
to his 'seed which is Christ.' To whatever passages in the 
Psalms or elsewhere Peter rxsaybe supposed to refer, to the Jews 
unquestionably the words meant, vrhat they appear to mean, 
that such anticipations could be fulfilled by a preternatural 
birth, without any known father, from a virgin of whose Da- 
vidic descent there is the slenderest possible evidence, or rather 
no evidence at all, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to 
those onl y who believe in alleged historical narratives on no 
other grounds than that they wish them to be true, and dare not 
call them in question." 

That is all there is about it, and you must now judge 
for yourselves. There is not a single word in the Bible 
which says that Mary is of royal blood. We come to 
the next point — the Messianic prophecies. He says 
there are prophecies spreading over four thousand years ; 
that I call upon him to prove. He referred to the ser- 
pent and seed of the woman as typical of Christ, and 
here are the exact words:' 

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and 
between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and 
thou shalt bruise his heel " (Gen. iii. 15). 

There is no more reference to Christ than there is to 
me. The verse only expresses what was forced upon the 
observation of all, by reason of the structure of the ser- 
pent and the disposition of man to kill whatever is 
hurtful to him. Let us now look to Isaiah vii. 14,— 
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; be- 
hold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and sha'l 
call his name Immanuel." At that time the Ling of 
Judea, Ahaz, was being warred against by Rezin, the 
king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, and the 
prophet told Ahaz that his enemies would be overthrown. 



THE UNDEBWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 97 

Ahaz asked for a sign, and that respecting the virgin 
was given to him, and in the sixteenth verse it sa3 r s : 

" For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and 
choose the good, the land that thou ab ho rest shall be forsaken 
of both her kings." 

In the next chapter Ave are told that the prophet 
went in unto the prophetess (virgin, meaning simply a 
damsel or young woman) and she conceived and bore a 
son. This has no teference to Jesus. Then we were 
told he was to be of the House of David. I leave it to 
you to determine whether that portion has been estab- 
lished or not. The Messiah of the Old Testament, was 
to be a different person altogether, and was to restore 
the ancient prosperity of Israel, and the Jews should 
go unto Jerusalem and serve God. A prophet shall 
come up after Moses like uuto him! Was Jesus Ike 
Moses '? He never slew an Egyptian. Moses was a war- 
rior, a conqueror, commence 1 public life as a murdeLer, 
and slaughtered women and children. Christ is named 
the Prince of Peace. If these prophecies w T ere taken up 
individually we could do jnsiicc to them. I have only 
had time to take up one- or two simply as specimens. I 
need not have done this, for he has not read to you one 
of the so-called Messianic prophecies. Tie quotes from 
John Stuart Mill, and I am no 1 disposed to complain of 
that. There is much in Jesus Christ that John j tua.it 
Mill and all Freethinkers admire. We all admire some 
of the teachings of Christ, though some of them are 
impracticable. Max Miiller will tell you that Buddha 
taught the purest morals bet'o.e the coming of Christ. 
Some of his parables have the appearance of being bor- 
rowed from Christ, but such could not have been the 
case as he lived long antecedent to Christ. There are 



98 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

none of the morals of Christ which are not preexistent. 
See the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter. The doc;rine of 
the brotherhood of man was a prominent doctrine iu 
the East, and the doctrine of self-examination was 
taught by Plato and Pythagoras. Christ never claimed 
to have originated them; that claim has been made by 
his followers. The golden rule was taught by Confucius 
B. C. 500. Mill, in his work on "Liberty," criticises 
and condemns such teachings as "Take no heed for the 
morrow," etc., and at the same time admits there is 
much else we can admire. 

I will now give you the creed of Bible believers, 
which will sufficiently explain why I disbelieve in it. "I 
believe there is a God, who made the universe out of 
nothing. I believe he knew everything, before there 
was anything, save himself to know. I believe he made 
everything, yet is not the author of evil. I believe that 
imperfection (sin) came from perfection. I believe that 
a being of infinite power and infinite love made a being 
who, from a state of innocence, became a devil, and 
through the strategy of this devil I believe sin entered 
the world. I believe, that in consequence, the whole 
human race became reduced to a lost, fallen condition. 
To remedy the wrong done, I believe that God "took 
on flesh and dwelt among men," was "born of woman, 
nursed at her breast and nestled in her arms." I be- 
lieve that after many hardships and much persecution, 
he was arrested, tried, condemned, nailed to a cross, 
and died in excruciating agony. I believe that his last 
words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me ? " I believe that in spite, of the great sacrifice ren- 
dered necessary by the strategy of the devil, but com- 
paratively few will be saved, while the majority of man- 
kind will be damned forever. I believe that the Jewibh 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 99 

and Christian Scriptures are a revelation from God. I 
believe all that these books relate. I believe that light 
was made the first day, the firmament the second, grass 
and fruit trees the third, the sua, moon and stars the 
fourth, fowl and fish the fifth, cattle, creeping things 
and man the sixth day; and after these six days' work 
I believe God "rested and was refreshed" (Ex. xxxi. 
18). I believe that ail the animals of the earth were 
once brought to Adam to be named. I believe that a 
serpent talked, that the same reptile was made to run 
on its belly, because of the part it took in the garden 
of Eden; that the reptile was made to act in a certain 
way and then cursed for what it could not help doing. 
I believe that the ground was cursed for man's sake. I 
believe that death, although it seems as natural as life, 
resulted from sin. I believe that there was a tree of 
knowledge of good and evil. I believe that partaking 
of its fruits or getting knowledge under the circum- 
stances was sinful. I believe that God in ancient times 
appealed to men, showed his back to Moses and his 
face to Israel. I believe, nevertheless, that "no man 
hath seen God at any time." I believe that God con- 
verted a woman into a pillar of salt, because she looked 
back upon her home. I believe that he stopped the sun 
on a mountain, and the moon in a valley, that one na- 
tion might have sufficient daylight to enable it to finish 
butchering another nation. I believe that he caused a 
fish to swallow a man, to keep him in his belly three 
days and three nights, and finally to spew him on the 
land, high and dry, safe and sound. I believe that to 
prevent men building a tower that should reach unto 
heaven, God confounded their languages. I believe that 
he destroyed all mankind, one family excepted, by a 
flood, because of the wickeduess upon the earth, and 



100 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 

then re-peopled the world with a race quite as bad as 
the first. I believe that once there were crowded into 
an ark, pairs and septules of all the species of animals 
on the globe, with food for the same for more than a 
year. I believe that God selected one nation from all 
others, and made it his special favorite. I believe that 
he commissioned and commanded said nation to exter- 
minate by the sword all the nations whose territory 
they wished to occupy or pass through. I believe that 
he ordered mothers and their new born babes to be 
butchered. I believe that he authorized Jewish soldiers 
to kill fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, and 
then to force the virgin daughters to marry the murder- 
ers of their relatives (Numbers, xxxi). I believe that 
God once killed more than 50,000 Israelites for looking 
into an old ark. I believe that he destroyed 70,000 Is- 
raelites, because a king took a census of his peoi>le. 
beLeve God put a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's 
prophets and sent them out on a lying mission. I be- 
lieve that he commanded the destruction of the Amal- 
ekites for what their ancestors had done four hundred 
years previously. I believe that God is a being of in- 
finite perfection, and yet is pleased and displeased every 
day. I believe he is unchangeable and yet a "prayer- 
answering God." I believe he has infinite power and 
desires all men to be saved, yet nearly all men will be 
damned. I believe that he is the author of all things, 
and " doeth all things well," and yet I think it is right 
to kill the bugs, insects, and vermin that destroy my 
grain, my trees and plants, or annoy myself. I believe 
it is sinful and dangerous not to believe these things. 
"He that believes and is baptized" I believe, "shall be 
saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." "lie 
that doubteth is damned already." "I believe, O Lord 



THE UNDERWOOD -MAEPLES DEBATE. 101 

help thou my unbelief." Is there anything more mon- 
strous, absurd or ridiculous than this, the whole of 
which is in the Bible ? 

Christianity is based upon a dream, upon the murder 
of an innocent person who died to save men who are 
criminals, and I sometimes call it the bankrupt scheme 
of salvation. It is sustained by miracles which have no 
evidence, which have no support in history. We are 
called bad men because we will not make Christ a scape- 
goat for our sins. We say if we are wrong, let us bear 
our wrongs ourselves, and not heap them upon the 
shoulders of an innocent person. I have as great a 
veneration for the Bible as I have for the Vedas ; but 
when you c aim for the one that which you do not claim 
for the other — inspiration and divine origin — I differ 
from you. All these ideas originated in different coun- 
tries, just the same as the other religions did. Max 
Mtiller gives us an account of how the Canon originated 
in the Hindoo religion, and shows us how it fostered a 
number of sects the same as Christianity did. I think 
that my friend's position has not been established, and 
there has been general evidence furnished by the failure 
of the prophecies and other sources that the Bible is of 
human origin and therefore stands on a par with other 
works in that respect. Here is a prophecy in the Bible 
that has never been fulfilled. The second coming of 
Christ. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians, i. 17, "Then w r e 
which are alive and remain shall be caught up together 
with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." 
The early Christians believed that the end of the world 
was at hand, but the revolution of centuries has shown 
the fallacy of the notion. To go back and twist the 
language out of its natural meaning, and say that it 
does not mean what it says, is to take a liberty with 



102 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 

the book that would not be allowed in anything else. 
I do not ascribe dishonesty to my friend or to parties, 
but they have a peculiar way of acting that would not 
be consistent with fairness and honesty in any other 
profession. We have the prophecies given by a woman 
years ago, several of which have come true. The verses 
are positively known to have existed a number of years 
before many of the events in it transpired. It is called 
Mother Shipton's prophecy: 

Carriages without horses shall go. 

And accidents fill the world with woe; 

Around the world thought shall fly 

In the twinkling of an eye; 

Water shall yet more wonders do, 

Now strange, but yet they shall be true; 

The world upside down shall be, 

And gold be found at the root of a tree- 

Through the hills man shall ride, 

And horse nor ass be at his side; 

Under water men shall walk, 

Shall ride, shall sleep, shall talk; 

In the air shall men be seen 

In white, in blue, in green; 

Iron in the water shall float 

As easy as a wooden boat; 

Gold shall be found and shown 

In land that's now not known; 

Fire and water shall wonders do; 

England shall at last admit a Jew; 

The end of the world shall come 

In eighteen hundred and eighty-one. 

I will not answer for the last of it. This, if found in 
the Bible, would be appealed to in proof of its divine 
origin. Berkeley, in his poem, predicted that "Westward 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 103 

the course of empire takes its way." We have a num- 
her of prophecies, but they are all ignored. But this 
gentleman rushes to the Bible and brings up a story 
about a serpent as a wonderful prediction in regard to 
Jesus Christ! 



Me. Makples. 

Just at the outset, will my opponent permit me to 
ask him for the name of the person who uttered the 
prophecy which he gives ? 

Mr. Underwood — Mother Shipton. 

In my country there was a story of that kind which 
passed under the name of Nixon, and now it has got to 
Mother Shipton. First, the genealogy of Christ. My 
opponent has endeavored to make out that Mary was 
not the daughter of Heli, but he does not say whose 
daughter she was, and consequently I still maintain 
that Mary was in point of fact the daughter of Heli, and 
consequently of the seed of David. He says that she 
was the cousin of Elizabeth, but does he not know that 
they apply that term sometimes to friends. That is the 
abstract meaning of the word cousin. He will have yet 
to prove that the term cousin there refers to a relative 
and not to a neighbor or friend. I have been exceed- 
ingly struck during this debate, and have noticed that 
my friend's logic is rather lame, it limps; and is lame 
in this sense: While he seems to have some kind of evi- 
dence in aid of the position he takes, he always takes 
that possessing a minority of evidence instead of a 
majority. The terms of the debate were to be that he 
was to get a preponderance of evidence, or fail. The 
whole thing*is a failure, and logic knocks it down. Well 
now, what is the fact? I will show you. We have this 



104 THE UNDERWOOD -M1KPLE3 DEBATE. 

statement here, and brought forward no less than twenty- 
persons to establish this statement. My friend brought 
two. Would you say that two form a majority? I 
would not expect that a reasonable people and persons 
of intellect would be gulled in that way. Our agree- 
ment requires a preponderance of evidence, and we re- 
ject the whole as no proof. The Messianic prophecies. 
Now, on that subject, my friend is a very good scriptu- 
rian, but to-night he was not very clever in getting out 
his passages. We ought to sympathize with our friend 
in his difficulties, and yet at the same time I thought 
that as ho was going on and trying to explain about the 
subject, and the passage in Isaiah, I thought that if he 
could bring it out as it is, what grand truths he would 
represent. There are circumstances which in their ful- 
fillment in the Lord Jesus Christ have afforded consola- 
tion to millions in the past and present, and will con- 
tinue to do so in the future. My opponent stated that 
Moses commenced his public life by committing a mur- 
der. Is there a Bible reader here who believes that 
Moses commenced his public lire by committing a mur- 
der, or killing the Egyptian? It was just human im- 
pulse that led him on, and he went astray — it was just 
like something that took place in Sheffield once. I was 
preaching out doors and a man said to me: "If you 
have a church, why not preach in your church?" I 
replied that as an Englishman, I had a right to preach 
anywhere, as long as the owner did not object. This 
man still continued to interrupt me, when another per- 
son in the audience, in a rough, zealous way, said: "If 
you tlo not stop, I will black your eyes." That was the 
spirit of Moses. Moses commenced the great life when 
called by God some time after the periocf referred to. 
My friend said that the teachings of Buddha could never 



THE UNDERWOOD -MARPLES DEBATE. 105 

have been obtained from Christ, because Buddha existed 
hundreds of years before Christ. I would remark that 
Max Muller is a great linguist, and en the subject of 
language is the greatest authority in the world, and I 
saw some time ago that he had published a work on 
comparative language, which I felt would be a very use- 
ful and valuable work; but when I saw some time since 
that he had also taken up the subject of comparative 
religion, I felt that he would make just as great a mess 
upon that subject as Profs. Huxley and Tyndall had. 
When he touches that subject he touches something 
upon which he knows comparatively nothing. Professor 
Max Muller as an authority on language is powerful 
and authentic, but on the subject of religion is no au- 
thority at all. In opposition to his statement I make 
this statement, that anything and everything that is 
good in all the Pagan religions has been obtained from 
the revelation of God in the Bible. It was easily ob- 
tained from the promise of the seed of the woman, up 
to those ideas of a later date, and their claiming to have 
originated them is simply an illustration of the fallen 
state of humanity, which would turn the truth of God 
into a lie. The first proposition discussed in this debate 
was that "Atheism, Materialism, and Modern Skepti- 
cism are illogical and contrary to reason," and I believe 
that I most thoroughly established my position, what- 
ever my opponent may say. The second proposition was, 
"That the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, contains evidence beyond other books of its 
divine origin," and I leave it to you whether I have not 
established that also. I will ju?t say that when I saw 
the communication of my respected friend, Mr. Allen 
Pringle, in the National newspaper, and the name of the 
Rev. John C.irroll, I ma le inquiries as to where I could 



106 THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 

get their addresses, and said that I was disposed to 
challenge Mr. Pringle to debate on the subjects which 
I had seen him defend in those communications. And 
now, my friends, my time has expired, and I must con- 
clude, believing I have done my best as the instrument 
in God's hand to defend this book, which has withstood 
far more vigorous assaults than received in this debate, 
and will yet withstand them. I reverence this book as 
containing a divine revelation of God's will to us, and 
love to read and study it, for 

" A glory gilds the sacred pags, 
Majestic like the sun; 
It gives a light to every age — 
It gives, but borrows none. 

The hand that gave it still supplies 

The gracious light and heat; 
Its truths upon the nations rise — 

They rise, but never set. 

Then, clasping the book to my heart, I would exclaim: 

Should all the forms that men devise, 
Assault this book with treacherous art, 

I'd call them vanity and lies, 
And bind the Bible to my heart." 



Mr. Underwood. 

Instead of taking advantage of my opponent, as he 
anticipated, perhaps, from the practice. of some debators, 
that I would, I shall now content myself with review- 
ing the last statements he has offered. I trust I am 
enough of a gentleman not to take unfair advantage of 
an opponent, especially in a speech that is to close the 



THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 107 

debate, and when I have had so honorable and courte- 
ous an opponent as Mr. Marples, whose treatment of 
me has been in pleasant contrast to that I have receiv- 
ed from a portion of the audience. 

My opponent says that Mother Shipton's prophecy 
has been ascribed to some other person. It is unimpor- 
tant who wrole it. That it was written many years ago, 
that it dates back a few centuries, probably even to the 
days of Charles the First, is pretty evident. He says 
that cousin means a friend. He does not venture to say 
positively, nor is there any reason for saying it means 
friend in the passage quoted. It means nothing of the 
sort. A nice way to get out of the difficulty ! He tells 
you about his logic. I admit he has talked the most 
about logic, but I hope this debate will show that I 
have observed its rules the most strictly. He seems to 
mistake the technicalities of logic for its principles and 
power. 

He gave us a syllogism the first evening, but what 
valuable application of it has he made in this debate ? 
He says the debate must be decided by the preponder- 
ance of evidence. But the most valuable evidence should 
preponderate. Truth does not always lie on the side of 
the majority. We value evidence by its quality, as much 
as by its quantity — indeed, far more. He says he has 
given you a number of prophecies in regard to Christ. 
The fact is, he has read none, but told you there are 
such and such prophecies in the Bible. I took up two 
or three of the pretended prophecies and showed their 
worthlessness, not because I was bound to by the laws 
of debate, but to induce my opponent to go into an 
examination of the Bible prophecies. He says I was 
unfortunate the other evening as a Scripturian. I leave 
the audience to judge whether I have not evinced as 



108 THE UNDEKWOOD-MARPLES DEBATE. 

much readiness to quote passages from the Bible, on 
the spur of th« moment, as he has with all his months 
of preparation for this debate. I knew nothing until I 
appeared on the platform, as to the particular position 
he would take, or the particular arguments he would 
use. I mentioned that Moses started out on his public 
career by murdering the Egyptian. I make all due 
allowance for his rash act, but I say that it is contrary 
to Jesus, who said, " I say unto you, that ye resist not 
evil " (Matt. v. 39). The prophecy was that another 
should arise up like Moses, and I strove to demonstrate 
the failure of that prophecy. Moses was a man of blood 
and war, and Jesus is represented as the harbinger and 
embodiment of peace. Moses carried war in all direc- 
tions, and killed, by the command of God, women and 
children. Christ is represented as revoking the old 
Mosaic system. The one is not a type of the other. He 
says that it was an impulse on the part of Moses. Quite 
likely. He says that Max Muller is great on philology, 
but not on comparative religion. I say that he is most 
thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and it is by an 
acquaintance with the language in which the Yedic 
hymns were written that he is able to know what Buddha 
did teach- In his "Science of Keligion " (p. 113) he says : 

f? Between the language of Buddha and his disciples, and the 
language of Christ and his apostles, there are strange coinci- 
dences. Even some of the Buddhist legends and parables 
sound as if taken from the New Testament, though we know 
that many of them existed before the beginning of the Chris- 
tian era." 

My friend says that whatever is good in those relig- 
ions is copied from the Bible. I would refer him to the 
statement made by a Christian minister, the Rev. Georgo 



THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 109 

B. Cocker, a member of the Methodist Church in the 
United States, and Professor in the Michigan University, 
who says that it is only the unskilful advocates of Chris- 
tian iry who try to trace heathen philosophy and morals 
to the Bible. We have proof that there are books five 
thousand years old, or pieces of papyrus which contain 
a morality as good as that found in the Pentateuch. In 
fact the whole Jewish religion is but an outgrowth of 
the Egyptian and other religions. The Bible does not 
contain one single doctrine, one single precept that was 
not in the other. He says we must have a preponder- 
ance of evidence. Has he brought any? He has quoted 
from some books, but what has he accomplished ? He 
told you in one of his early speeches that he was going 
to test the Bible by the moral rule, and I mentioned 
the 31st chapter of Numbers, to entice him to do so. 
He only glides over it, and never gives an opportunity 
to demonstrate the failings of the Christian religion. 
Then his concluding poetry is rather rhymatical and 
beautiful, but there is no logic in it. I say that he has 
brought forward no genuine evidence that the Bible is 
more inspired than other bocks. The Bible has beau- 
ties, we do not deny, but it has also defects. It has 
more contradictions, perhaps, than any other book writ- 
ten — more obscenity than most works. George Francis 
Train was arrested for publishing in a tract the obscene 
portions of the Bible. The fact that it contains these 
indecencies is a proof that' it never came from a divine 
source. These gentlemen say that it contains two ele- 
ments, the divine and the human; but they are so 
mixed up, you cannot tell where the one begins and the 
other ends. It has no internal or external evidence of 
its divine origin. He says that miracles form the basis 
upon which its divine origin is based, and forgets to 



110 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE, 

bring forward even one of tbem to be examined. When 
these miracles are subjected to criticism they disappear 
at once. Albert Barnes says : 

"A more material and important question still is, whether 
there is any stronger evidence in favor of miracles, than there 
is in favor of witchcraft, of sorcery, of the re-appearance of 
the dead, of ghosts, of apparitions ? Is not the evidence in 
favor of these as strong as any that can be adduced in favor of 
miracles ? Have not these things been matters of universal be- 
lief ? In what respect is the evidence in favor of the miracles 
of the Bible stronger than that which can be adduced in favor 
of witchcraft and sorcery ? Does- it differ in nature and de- 
grees; and if it differs, is it not in favor of witchcraft and sor- 
cery ? Has not the evidence in favor of the latter been derived 
from as competent and reliable witnesses ? Has it not been 
brought to us from those who saw the facts alleged ? Has it 
not been subjected to a close scrutiny in courts of justice — to 
cross-examination — to tortures ? Has it not convinced those 
of highest legal attainments; those accustomed to sift testi- 
mony; those who understood the true principles of evidence? 
Has not the evidence in favor of witchcraft and sorcery had, 
what the evidence in favor of miracles has not had, the advan- 
tage of strict judicial investigation, and been subjected to trial, 
where evidence should be, before court? of Jaw ? Have not 
the most eminent judges in the most civilized and enlightened 
courts of Europe and America admitted the force of such evi- 
dence, and on the ground of it committed great numbers of in- 
nocent persons to the gallows or to the stake ? 

"I confess that of all the questions ever asked on the sub- 
ject of miracles, this is the most perplexing and the mest diffi- 
cult to answer. It is rather to be wondered at, that it Las not 
been pressed with more zeal by those who deny the reality of 
miracles, and that they have placed their objections so exten- 
sively on other grounds " (pp. 1C1. 162). 

Thus if we examine the Bible we discover that it con- 



THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. m 

tains a mixture of good and evil. If we should try to 
practice some of its precepts, we would be arrested as 
vagrants or" sent to a lunatic -asylum as lunatics. The 
Old Testament teaches a barbarous morality. A God of 
infinite love and purity could never have ordered little 
children to be murdered upon the breasts of their moth- 
ers, and the young virgins to be reserved for a fate to 
which death would be preferable* 



WORLD'S SAGES, INFIDELS AID THINKERS, 

A. Crown-Octavo Volume of over 1100 pages. 

Being the biographies and important doctrines of the mostdistiu- 
g lished Teachers, Philosophers, Reformers, Innovators, Founders 
of New Schools of Thought and Religion, Disbelievers in current 
Theology, and the deepest Thinkers and most active Humanitarians 
of the world, from Menu down through the following three thousand 
years to our own time. It is believed that the work fills a want long 
fel", and adds materially to (he general information touching the 
characters treated, affording a succinct and correct account of the 
be.^t and truest persons who have lived in the world, and concerning 
whom large numbers of volumes would have to bi consulted to 
de;ive this information: and all in a convenient and economical 
form. It is divided into four parts. Pa; t oat- From Menu to Christ. 
Part two-*-From Christ to Thomas Paine. Part three— From Taomas 
Paine to Lord Amberley. Part four— Living Characters. To all of 
whom the world owes much for the progress it has made in the evo- 
lution of Thought, Truth, and Reason. 

By D. M. BENNETT, Editor of The Truth Seeker. 

With a steel -plate engraving of the author. 

Among the three hundred, and more, characters treated in 
the work are Christna, Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lycurgus. 
Solon, Pythagoras, Democritus. Socrates, Piato, Aristotle, Carneades- 
Cicero, Apollonius, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcos Aurelius, Porphyry' 
Proclus, Mohammed. Averroes, Copernicus, Roger Bac n, Bruno, 
Yanini, Lord Bacon. Shakspere, Galileo. Spinoza. Bolingbroke, Vol- 
taire, Benjamin Franklin, Buffon, Kant, D'Holbaeh. George Wash- 
ington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Goethe, Talleyrand, Yol- 
ney.Dr. Gall, Mary Wollstonecraft.Thorild.Fiehte, Humboldt, Hegel, 
Godfrey Higgins, Fourier, George Combe, Shelley, Frances Wright, 
Thomas Buckle. Charles Lyell, Dr. Inman, Lord Amberley, Darwin, 
Spencer, T ndall, Huxley, Wallace, Crookes, Haeckel, Buechner, 
Max Muller, Prof. Draper, John Fiske, Bradlaugh, and many others. 

Cloth, good binding, . - . . . . $3.00 

Arabesque, colored leather, red burnished edges, . 4.00 
Morocco, gilt edges, worked head-band, . . . 4.30 

Sent, post-paid, by mail, on receipt of price, Published by 

I). M. BEXXETT, 

Liberal and Scientific Publishing House, 
111 Eighth Street, New York, 



CHAMPIONS OF THE CHURCH. 

Biographical Sketches of Eminent Christians. 

A COMPANION BOOK OB COUNTEBPABT TO " THE WOBLD'S 
SAGES, INFIDELS AND THINKEBS. 

Will be issued early in 1877. Containing a correct history of such 
distinguished ornaments ot the Church as Sr. Paul, Eusebius, Con- 
stan ine, St. Cyril. Clovis. Pepin, Charlemagne, Irene, Pope Joan. 
John XII., John Xlir., Alexander I.. Alexander III.. Inuocent III. 
Boniface Vill,. Benedict XII., John XXlL.John XX11L, Alexander 
VI., and some fifty o. hers of the Popes; Godfrey of Bouillon. Guy 
Lusi«nan. Simon Montfort.St. Dominic, Peter the Cruel, Sigismund, 
L >uis XI. of F.ance, Loyola. Ojeda, Torque nada. Lutaer, Calvin, 
Munzftr, Ferdinand and Isabel'a. C >rtez, Pizarro. Henry VIII. of 
England, B;o 'dy Mary, Alva. Cain me r. Elizabeth, Charles IX. of 
France, Catherine de Medici, Philip II. of Spain, Guy Fawk s. Oliver 
Cromwell, Jeffrey, Charles II., Lou's XIV. of France, John Graham, 
(Claverhruise), James II.. Parris, Cotton Matter, Lphraira K. Avery. 
Bishop Onderdonk, L. D, Huston. Henry Ward Beeeher, Anthony 
Comstock. and hosts of others of tue same fra ernity. including wily, 
desiguiug, libidinous, lecherous fathers, bUhops, pries-.s ana pastors 
for many •enturies. 

A full history is given of the bloody wars of Christianity, which 
have been inhumanly wnged to spread its rule. The wars of the 
Crusades; the ten ible o Derations for hundreds of years of the Holy 
Inquisition with its auto-da-fe; the merciless pers«cu ions and 
exterminations of the Vaudois, the Albigense*. the Waldonses, the 
Moors audJewsof Spain, the Huguenots of France, the P<ote*>tant 
Netheilan i^rs. the Independents. Quakers and Dissenters of E ig- 
land; the Quakers and witches of New England. It contains a his- 
tory of Jesuiiism for three centuries; of the granting and selling 
of indulgences bythe Church, to commit all kinds of crimes and 
immoralities, as well as culpable defections of recent date. The bio- 
graphical portion is pr^eed^d by a historical examination into the 
authenticity of ancient Jewish History, showing that the parr of it 
anterior to the Babvloni^h captivity, is wholly unauthentic and 
rny:hical; of Primitive Christianity— its origin, its semblance to 
pre-e i-tent systems of religion, its adoption of Pagan rites, its 
political growth and influence. The whole based upon Christian 
authorities. 

BY D. M. BENNETT, 

Editor of " The Truth Seeker." 

Ono thousand pages or more, making a volume of the size and 

style of " The World's Sages, Infidels, and Thinkers." 

In cloth 3 00 

Arabesque, colored leather and red burnished edges, 4 00 

Morocco, gilt edges and worked head-bands, . . 4 50 

Post-paid, by mail. Those wishing a copy of this volume as soon 

as issued, will please notify the author and publisher at an early 

date. 

D M. BENNETT, 

Liberal and Scientific Publishing House, 

Science Hall. 141 Eighth St., New York. 



Lord Amberley's Great Work. 

ANALYSIS S RELIGIOUS BELIEF 

BY VISCOUNT AMBERLEY, 

Son of Lord John Russell, of England. 

Soon to be Reproduced frcm tlie London Edition. 

This remarkable work has attracted very unusual attention in 
England. It is the work of a brilliant young lord of Christian 
parents, and who was brought up in tho Christian faith, and who 
upon investigation and reflection became a decided unbeliever, tho 
result of which is the elaborate work here named, and which took 
him several years to prepare. While ho was writing the work his 
amiable wife was taken away by the hand of death, and to her ho 
dedicated the forthcoming volumes. Soon after the work was com- 
pleted, and before it came from the hands of the publisher, Lord 
Amberley himself closed his eyes in death. He died serenely, with 
tho full conviction of tho truthfulness of the work he had written. 
His mother, Countess Russell, although a Christian, was so devoted 
to her deceased son that she caused his work to be completed, and in 
her introduction to the book she spoke as follows:— 

" Ere the pages now given to the public had left the press, tho hand 
that had written them was cold, the neart— >f which few could know 
the loving depth— had ceased to baa 1 ". The far-ranging raiad was 
forever still, the fervent spirit at rest. Lit this be remembered by 
those who read, and add solemnity to the solemn purpose of tho 
book. May those who fl-id in it their m >st cherished beliefs ques- 
tioned or condemned, their surest consolation set at nought, lernem- 
ber that ho had not shrank from pain andaaguish to himself, as one 
by one he parted wih portions of tnat faiih which, in boyhood and 
early youth, had been them aaspriog of his life." .... 

The fact that the powerful friends of Lord John Russell, and 
notably the Duke of Bedford, made many exertions to arrest the pub- 
lication of Lord Ambedey's work, caused still greater interest in 
the remarkable book, and this interest has extended to this country. 
There has been much enquiry for it. 

The undersigned will bring it out as soon as possible. Tho Eng- 
lish edition is issued in two octavo volumes, containing over l.ooo 
pages, and sells at $15.00, in cloth. The undersigned will bring it 
out, unabridged, in one volume of about 1,000 pages, at the very low 
price of $3.00 in cloth ; $4.00 in colored leather, red burnished edges ; 
$4.50 in Morocco, gilt edges, etc. 

Those wishing a copy will please notify the publisher, 

D. M. BENNETT, 
Science Hall, 141 Eighth St., 

New York. 



"The Heathens of the Heath" 



A ROMANCE. 



by william McDonnell, 

ATJTHOB OF "EXETEB HALL," ETC. 



This Work is rich in romantic and pathetic incidents and 
exhibits, with an overwhelming array of facts, the 

TERRIBLE ATROCITIES 

committed by the Church. It shows that the purest morality exists 
without the Bible, and that many of the heathen philosopher* were 
lovers of virtue. 

Shocking instances are given of the 

DEPRAVITY OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS, 

and of the prevailing immorality among Christian people. Th« 
folly of "Christian Missions" is fully portrayed. 

HYPOCRISY AND BIGOTRY 

are clearly exposed, and the road to virtue and true happiness 
plainly marked out. 

A MOST PLEASING ROMANCE 

is woven into the work in which much chance is afforded for flne 
descriptions and beautiful sentiments, which the autnor well knows 
how to give utterance to. 

" On the whole it is the work of a master hand— a work of unaf- 
fected beauty and the deepest interest." 

" One of the most valuable features of the Work is that its posi- 
tions are all proved. . . Every thinking, enquiring rr.ind should 
peruse it. 

PRICE, in paper, $1.00 

" in cloth, 1.50 

Sent postpaid on receipt of price. 

D. M. BENNETT, Publisher, 



Sow the Good Seed? 



LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE! 



CIRCULATE TRUTHFUL DOCUMENTS! PASS 

AROUND THE TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS! 

and other Liberal Publications to do missionary work, and to help 
in opening THE EYES OF THE BLIND! 



THE TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS 

AND 

TRUTH SEEKER LEAFLETS 

are furnished at prices very low, so that Societies and generous 
individuals can buy them for gratuitous distribution. 

LARGE DISCOUNTS 

TO THOSE WHO PURCHASE BY THE QUANTITY. See price list. 

These Tracts contain from four to seventy-five pages. The 
prices run from one cent to ten cents. Discount ten per cent, on 
lots of one dollar's worth, and forty per cent off on five dollars' 
worth. The Leaflets are two pages each of terse, trenchant reading 
matter, without redundancy, at four cents per dozen; twenty-five 
cents per hundred ; two dollars per thousand. Sent by mail, post- 
age paid. 

Probably a few dollars can be expended for spreading TRUTH 
and LIGHT in no way so effectually as in dispensing broadcast 

THE TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS AND LEAFLETS. 

Let Liberals exercise liberality enough to give away thousands 
and ten of thousands of these little evangels. They are well design- 
ed to do missionary work and in spreading the glad tidings of truth. 
If a proper enthusiasm is enkindled in the breasts of the lovers of 
Freethought and Mental Liberty, much good can be accomplished. 

Let friends invest $1, $2, $5, or $10 in this way, and see how much 
good it will do. "We certainly ought, to be as zealous in promulgating 
truth as our adversaries are in disseminating error. 

Published by 

D. M. BENNETT, 



TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS, 

[REVISED LIST.] 

No. Cts. 

1. Discussion on Prayer, etc. D. M. Bennett and two Clergy- 

men, v 8 

2. Oration on the Gods. B. G. Ingersoll. 10 

3. Thomas Paine. B. G. Ingersoll. 5 

4. Arraignment of the Church, or Individuality, B. G. In- 

gersoll. 5 

5. Heretics and Heresies. B. G. Ingersoll. 5 

6. Humboldt. B. G. Ingersoll. 5 

7. The Story of Creation. D. M. Bennett. 5 

8. The Old Snake Story. " 8 

9. The Story of the Flood. " 8 

10. Tae Plagues of Esypt. " 2 

11. Koran. Datham. and Abiram. D. M. Bennett. 2 

12. Balaam and his Ass. D. M. Bennett. 2 

13. Arraignment of Priestcraft. D. M. Bennett. 8 

14. Old Abe and Little Ike. John Syphers. 3 

15. Come to Dinner. " 2 

16. log Horn Documents. 2 

17. The Devil Still Ahead. " 2 

18. Slipped up Again. " 2 

19. Joshua Stopping the Sun and Moon. D. M. Bennett 2 

20. Samson and his Exploits. D. M. Bennett. 2 

21. The Great Wrestling Match. " 2 

22. Discussion with Elder Shelton. " 10 

23. Beply to Elder Shelton's Fourth Letter. D. M. Bennett 3 

24. Christians at Work. Wm. McDonnell. 6 

25. Discussion with Geo. Snode. D. M. Bennett. 3 

26. Underwood's Prayer. 1 

27. Honest Quesi ions and Honest Answers. Bennett 5 

28. Alessandro -li Cagliostro. Chas. Sotheran. 10 

29. Paine Hall Dedication Address. B. F. Underwood. 5 

30. Woman's Bights and Man's Wrongs. John Syphers. 2 

31. Gods and God-houses. John SyDhers. 2 

32. The Gods of Superstition, and the God of the Universe. 

D. M. Bennett. 8 

33. What has Christianity Done? S. H. Preston. 2 
31. Tribute to Thomas Paine. S. H. Preston. 2 
35. Moving the Ark. D. M. Bennett. 2 
3G. Bennett's Prayer to the Devil. 2 

37. A Short Sermon, No. l. Bov. Theologicus.D.D. 2 

38. Christianity not a Moral System. X. Y. Z. 2 

39. The True Saint. S.P.Putnam. 1 

40. The Bible of Nature us. The Bible of Men. Syphers. 2 
*'. Our Ecclesiastical Gentry. D. M. Bennett. 

42. Elijah the Tishbite. D. M. Bennett. 4 

43. Christianity a Borrowed System. D. M. Bonnett, 8 

44. Design Argument Befuted. B. F. Underwood. 8 

45. Elisha the Prophet. D. M. Bonnett. 8 

46. Did Jesus Really Exist? D. M. Bennett. 2 

47. Cruelty and Credulity of the Human Baco. Dr. D. Arter. 8 



48. Freethought in the West. G. L. Henderson. 6 

49. Sensible Conclusions. E. E, Guild. 5 

50. Jonah and the Big Fish. D. M. Bennett. 3 
61. Sixteen Truth S-eker Leaflets. No. 1. 5 

52. Marples-Underwood Debate. B. F. Underwood. 3 

53. Questions for Bible Worshipers. B. F. Underwood. 2 

54. An Open Letter to Jesus Christ. D. M. Bennett. 5 

55. Bible God Disproved by Nature. W.E.Coleman. 8 

56. Bible Contradictions. 1 

57. Jesus Not a Perfect Character. B. F. Underwood. 2 

58. Prophecies. B. F. Underwood. 2 

59. Bible Prophecies Concerning Babylon. Underwood. 2 

60. Ezekiel's Prophecies Concerning Tyre. Underwood. 2 

61. History of the Devil. Isaac Paden. 6 

62. The Jews and their God. Isaac Paden. 10 

63. The Devil's Due-Bills. JohnSyphers. 3 

64. The Ills We Endure— their Cause and Cure. Bennett. 5 

65. Short Sermon No. 2. Rev. Theologicus. D.D. 2 
56. God Idea in History. Hugh Byron Brown. 5 
87. Sixteen Truth Seeker Leaflets, No. 2. 5 

68. Ruth's Idea of Heaven and Mine. Susan H. Wixon, 2 

69. Missionaries. Mrs. E. D. Slenker. 2 

70. Vicarious Atonement, Dr. J. S. Lyon. 3 

71. Paine's Anniversary. C. A. Codman. 3 

72. Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. D. M. Bennett. 2 

73. Foundations. John Syphers. 3 

74. Daniel in the Lions' Den. D. M. Bennett. 2 

75. An Hour with the Devil. D. M. Bennett. 10 

76. Reply to Erastus F. Brown, Bennett. 5 

77. The Fear of Death. " 9 

78. Chriotmas and Christianity. " 5 

79. The' Relationship of Jesus. Jehovah, and the "Virgin Mary 2 

80. Address on Paine's 139th Birthday. Bennett. 8 

81. Hereafter ; or. The Half-Wav House. John Syphers. 2 

82. Christian Courtesy, Bennett. 2 

83. Revivaiism Examined. A.G.Humphrey. 5 
8i. Moody's Sermon on Hell. Rev. J. P. Hopps, London. 2 

85. Matter, Motion, Life, and Mind. Bennett. 10 

86. An Enquiry about God's Sons. Bennett. 2 

87. Free' nought. Judged by its Fruits. B. F. Underwood. 1 
83. David, God's Peculiar Favorite. Mrs. E. D, Slenker. 3 
89 LDgic of Prayer. Charles Stephenson. 3 

90. Bibio- -Mania. Otter Cordate-. 2 

91. Our Ideas of God. B. F. Underwood. 1 

92. The Bible; Is it Divinely Inspired? Dr. D. Arter. 3 

93. Obtaining Pardon for Sins. Hudson Tuttle, ' 1 

94. The New Raven. Will Cooper. 5 

95. Jesus Christ, Bennett. 10 
93. Ichabod Crane Papers. 10 
97. Special Providences. W. S. Bell. 2 
93. Snakes. Mrs. E. D. Slenker. 2 
99. D.j the Works of Nature Prove a Creator ? Sciota. 3 
100 The Old and the Now. R. G. Ingersoll. 5 

Also othcra, and a Last of TEN SCIENTIFIC TRACTS. 



THE TRUTH SEEKER, 

A Weekly Journal of Progress and Eeform ; 

DEVOTED TO 

SCIENCE, MORALS, FREETHOUGHT AND 
HUMAN HAPPINESS. 



D. M. BENNETT, Editor and Publisher. 



Believing there is nothing in the world so valuable as Truth, 
The Truth Seeker is earnest and constant in search of it, and hes- 
itates not to fearlessly avow its honest convictions It is outsp >ken 
in its condemnation of the errors and fallacies of the past, and in 
holding up in the light of the present era the theological dogmas and 
the blinding creeds of pagan superstition which had their origin 
thousands of years ago in the primitive ages of our race. 

The Truth Seeker was started as an eight-pag - Monthly in 
Paris, 111., in September. 1873. Pour numbers were issued in that 
locality, when it was decided to remove it to New York, and to double 
its number of pages. With the beginning of its secondvolume.it 
became a Semi-Monthly, and the second volume was continued six- 
teen months, to the close of 1875, when it became a Weekly, steadily 
growing and increasing in popularity with its readers from its 
infancy. It is believed The Truth Seeker is destined to become the 
recognized champion and mouth-piece of the rapidly-growing Lib- 
eral and progressive element of the country. 

Every lover of Truth: every person favorable to the feirless 
expression of honest opinions; every individual who wishes to 
spread broadcast the glad tidings of Right and Reason ; every friend 
of mental liberty who desires that sectarianism superstition, big- 
otry and error shall retire to the rear should subscribe for the 
valiant Truth Seeker, and induce as many others to do so as pos- 
sible. 

The friends of truth and progress can hardly be said to have dis- 
charged their full duty who do not lena their support to this merito- 
rious publication. 

In No. I. Vol. III., is commence! as a serial, that rich, radical 
romance, The Outcast, by the late Winwood Reade. one of the ablest 
and most interesting writers this century has produced. Professor 
Richard A. Proctor's popular course of Lectures on Astronomy, as 
delivered in Steinway Hall, New York, reported expressly for The 
Truth Seeker, will be commenced in the same number. As the 
English edition of The Outcast sells at $2.00. and as Proctor's course 
of Lectures cost $3.00, and as these together form but a small portion 
of the valuable reading matter given for $2.00, the reader can easily 
perceive how reasonable The Truth Seeker is in price. 

Its very moderate terms place it wiihin the reach of all. It is 
sent, post-paid, 

Twelve Months for $2 00 

Six Months for ...... 1 00 

Three Months for 50 

Sample copies sent upon application. 

The names of all Liberal- minded people are solicited, who would 
be likely to appreciate a periodical of this character. 

Reader, please decide at once to aid your name to the fortunate 
thousands who are on The Truth Seeker list. If not already 
ordered, send for it for either twelve or si.v. or at least three 
months,, Address 

D. M. BENNETT, Publisher, 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Perk Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 77 



n. 



11 IT 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 774 001 1 



' ! ■ . 


11 


j 111 J 


1 


1 




Hi 


ill 


y 


!lifi' 


5 1 • 

'! 1 
1 •' 


i 


| 1 j 

1 

ml 


1 

S ! 'i ! 

III \ ! 
jj! 1W 



